- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:12:53 +0100
- To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Leonard Will wrote: > In message <415D70C5.3000806@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Dave > Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote > >> 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." > > > If I may again translate this into thesaurus-speak, to clarify it in my > mind, we would say that "resources" (or "documents") do not form part of > a thesaurus. > > When a thesaurus is used to index a collection of documents, we > associate one or more thesaurus terms with each document, showing that > that document has some relevance to the concepts which the terms > represent. This creates a catalogue. I'd prefer to avoid the expression > "classified under", because classification is a rather different > operation than the assignment of index terms for retrieval purposes. Sounds fine. So would a name like "skos:indexedUnder" (for a property which links from a document/resource to a thesaurus concept) be a preferrable name? > A thesaurus may have concepts which are "classes of one", often > represented by proper names, but these are still concepts, not resources. Thanks, that's helped to clarify the earlier discussion. So the second modeling I suggested (that the analogue of a skos:Concept 'Alistair Miles' would be an owl:Class with one member) would be the normal interpretation. Dave
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 16:14:05 UTC