W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2004

RE: FW: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] skos:denotes

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:09:23 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C5C@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Dave Reynolds' <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Dave,

Nice email.

Just picking up on this bit ...

> I then might have:
> 
>     ex:resourceC ex:classifiedAs ex:PersonS;
>       foaf:name 'Alistair Miles' .
>
> By the way, having written out this example I'd argue that if 
> you want to 
> build in some links between RDFS and SKOS then some official 
> replacement 
> for the "ex:classifiedAs" I invented above would be much higher up my 
> priority list than "denotesSameAs".

What would be the semantics of such a property, and how would it be
different from e.g. skos:broaderInstantive?

Al.






> > 
> > ex:resourceA	a	skos:Concept;
> > 				skos:prefLabel	'Alistair Miles';
> > 				skos:scopeNote	'My mate Al.'
> > .
> > 
> > ex:resourceB	a	foaf:Person;
> > 				foaf:name	'Alistair Miles';
> > 				foaf:mbox	
<mailto:a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
> .
> 
> ... the burining questions are:
> 
> Are these two resources fundamentally different in nature, or not?
> 
> Are these two resources at different levels of abstraction, or not?
> 
> My point in the last email [1] was that, it *does not* seem reasonable to
> allow for example:
> 
> ex:resourceC	a	skos:Concept;
> 				skos:prefLabel	'Alistair Miles';
> 				skos:scopeNote	'My mate Al.';
> 				a	foaf:Person;
> 				foaf:name	'Alistair Miles';
> 				foaf:mbox	<mailto:a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
> .
> 
> ... intuitively because properties like 'skos:scopeNote' seem appropriate
to
> describe an abstract concept, but not to describe a person.
> 
> I.e. in logic speak the classes skos:Concept and foaf:Person should be
> disjoint.  
> 
> What Dave said in an earlier email (I think) was that I should not think
of
> ex:resourceB as an actual person, but as an abstract entity, with the same
> metaphysical status as ex:resourceA (i.e. they are both abstractions).
> 
> But intuitively I do think of ex:resourceB as an actual person (should I
> change that?), and that feeling is the basis for my assertion above.  And
> even if I do accept they are both abstractions, one *feels* to me more
> abstract than the other.
> 
> Are we getting closer or farther away?
> 
> Al. 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Oct/0000.html
> 
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 14:09:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:16 UTC