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: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:15:55 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C68@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Leonard Will' <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, "'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.

Can't we do 'skos:subject' for this?

I think 'skos:subject' fits better with the other proposed properties
'skos:isSubjectOf', 'skos:primarySubject' and 'skos:isPrimarySubjectOf'.

(i.e. usage: 'concept X skos:isSubjectOf document d' ... which would be the
inverse of 'document d skos:subject concept X')

Additionally, this seems preferable to me, because the *meaning* of an
indexing assignment is represented ... i.e. we can differentiate between
different *types* of indexing e.g. traditional subject-based indexing of
documents (for which 'skos:subject' is appropriate) versus typological
categorisation of museum objects (for which presumably you'd want to use a
different property).


> >> 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 Monday, 4 October 2004 13:16:28 UTC

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