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

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



Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
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