- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:48:53 -0400
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I missed most of the skos:denotes thread, so I'll try to summarize my
position here. Let me restate Alistair's example:
a:ajm a skos:Concept
; skos:prefLabel "Alistair Miles"
; skos:scopeNote "The man from SKOS"
.
b:ajm a foaf:Person
; foaf:name "Alistair Miles"
; foaf:mbox <mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
.
My feeling is that a:ajm and b:ajm should not be considered to denote
the same resource.
Let's say they did. That would mean that we can replace a:ajm with b:ajm
and vice versa anywhere in the graph without changing its
interpretation. Now let's say that another concept scheme also includes
a concept for Alistair:
c:ajm a skos:Concept
; skos:prefLabel "Alistair Miles"
.
In that case, we'd have to say that c:ajm also denotes the same resource
as a:ajm and b:ajm. The problem is that most of the annotation
properties SKOS provides only make sense in the context of a single
concept scheme. My feeling is that we do not want a:ajm and c:ajm to
denote the same resource.
What we want to say is:
a:ajm skosmap:exactMatch c:ajm.
An analogous situation applies to classes in RDFS and OWL. rdfs:Class
and owl:Class are intensional, which means that two classes can have the
same extension but still be distinct. For example, here are two distinct
classes with the same extension:
d:ajm a owl:Class
; rdfs:label "A class whose only instance is Alistair"
; owl:oneOf ( b:ajm )
.
e:ajm a owl:Class
; rdfs:label "A different class whose only instance is Alistair"
; owl:oneOf ( b:ajm )
.
Additionally, if a:ajm and b:ajm are distinct, we can make a useful
distinction between dc:subject and foaf:topic:
ex:something_about_alistair
; dc:subject a:ajm
; foaf:topic b:ajm
.
ex:something_about_concept_ajm
; foaf:topic a:ajm
.
--
David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2004 04:48:57 UTC