- From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:38:13 +0100
- To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
In message <415D8205.3010203@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote >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? Yes, but I don't like to use "under", which implies some form of subordination. Perhaps something like "indexed as", "indexed with", "associated with" or "relevant to" would be better. The first two of these put more emphasis on the operation of indexing, implying that someone has made a decision to apply these terms to a resource within a particular catalogue, whereas the second two put more emphasis on the more abstract statement that there is some relationship between the resource and the concept. >> 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. Yes. There may be many resources or documents about "Alistair Miles", but they would each be linked to the single thesaurus concept identified by his name. Leonard -- Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will) Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276 L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 16:39:04 UTC