W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2004

RE: subject indicators ... ?

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:24:21 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C6E@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Charles McCathieNevile' <charles@w3.org>, Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Cc: 'Bernard Vatant' <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

The idea I had for a 'skos:indicator' property is that it points to a web
resource that consists of a *complete* description of the concept.  This
should include labels, definitions, examples, etc. where present.  

This is in contrast with the e.g. 'skos:definition' or 'skos:example'
properties, for which I would like to allow the use of web resources as
values as an alternative to literal values, but where the web resource only
has to contain a 'definition' or an 'example' respectively.

Such a 'skos:indicator' property would also provide an alternative to
resolvable URIs for concepts ... i.e. you can have a concept with a
non-resolvable URI, and if you are looking for a complete
(content-negotiable) description of that concept, you look up the
'indicator'.

Does this sound sane?  If it does, should it be called 'indicator' or should
we go for another name?

Thanks,

Al.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles
> McCathieNevile
> Sent: 28 September 2004 09:54
> To: Stella Dextre Clarke
> Cc: 'Bernard Vatant'; 'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: subject indicators ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Stella Dextre Clarke wrote:
> 
> >Bernard,
> >Thanks for the explanation. It seems "subject indicator" is 
> intended to
> >be more like "example" than like "definition", and I don't have a
> >problem with this.
> 
> It could be something like either, depending on use...
> 
> >There may be a lag, however, before many producers of
> >thesauri think of taking up this facility. Few of them are likely to
> >have been following the conversations in the Semantic Web 
> community. So
> >I guess some time may pass before the idea catches on for widely used
> >thesauri.
> 
> I agree - this facility is more likely to be used by people 
> making small
> thesauri than by professionals who are used to making their 
> own complete
> thesaurus. But for that community (it includes me, from time 
> to time) I think
> it is useful to allow pointing to an existing definition that 
> someone else
> created rather than replicating the work.
> 
> As Bernard points out, without control over the resource 
> being pointed to
> people should be clear about how stable it might be, but as a 
> simple example
> I suspect that a definition in a W3C specification, or 
> something published by
> the University of Melborne, is likely to be at least as 
> reliable as something
> I put on a website that is strictly tied to my current ISP contract...
> 
> And yes, this is a facility that the Semantic Web offers as 
> part of its
> design. Whether every user decides to take advantage of it 
> doesn't seem as
> important to me as whether it is something that some people 
> will use, and
> whether it fits into the overall design framework without storing up
> problems...
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:24:56 UTC

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