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 16:10:36 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C5E@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Dave Reynolds' <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

I like the idea of including a sub-property of dc:subject in SKOS Core,
which carries similar semantics to dc:subject but for whom the range is
restricted to skos:Concept, and for whom:

if (r skos:subject s) holds and (s skos:broader sb) then
(r skos:subject sb) holds 

I don't like the name 'classifiedAs' because the notion of 'classification'
would then be overloaded - i.e. you could talk about a document being
'classified under' a concept, and you could also potentially talk about a
concept being 'classified under' another concept, where the underlying
semantics where actually different.

That's why I used the name 'skos:subject' in the above example ... but mind
(as always) completely open.  


Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 01 October 2004 15:59
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: FW: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] skos:denotes
> Hi Al,
> >>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?
> I'd define it something like:
> Short: "Used to link a resource to a skos:Concept which that 
> resource can 
> be classified under."
> Longer: "We can think of a SKOS concept as standing for the set of 
> resources which can be classified under that concept. For 
> example, in a 
> thesaurus of computer science topics used for document 
> classification one 
> might have a 'Distributed systems' concept which stands for 
> all the papers 
> which can be classified under 'Distributed systems'. When the 
> things being 
> classified are represented by RDF resources then it is useful 
> to have a 
> property which can link the resource to the SKOS Concept(s) 
> under which it 
> is classified - skos:classifiedAs is such a property though 
> applications 
> are free to define more specific sub-properties."
> Perhaps it should be a sub-property of dc:subject with the 
> added constraint 
> that the range is skos:Concept.
> As to semantics I'm not sure. You could define its semantics 
> to include 
> inheritance of classification:
>    if (r skos:classifiedAs s) holds and (s skos:broader sb) then
>            (r skos:classifedAs sb) holds
> Or you could leave that open. In SWED we keep the transitively-closed 
> version of the classification relations separate because 
> that's easier to 
> work with in engineering terms.
> The difference from skos:broaderInstantive is that it has domain 
> rdfs:Resource rather than skos:Concept.
> Cheers,
> Dave
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 15:11:11 UTC

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