- 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