- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:34:04 +0100
- To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Thinking about this some more ... I don't think it makes sense to allow people to *define* a new concept in relation to someone else's 'indicator' (because presumably the indicator will include information such as which scheme the concept is a member of, history notes etc. ... i.e. scheme-local information). However, I think it does make sense to allow people to *refer* to concepts via their 'indicator' ... in which case a 'skos:indicator' property *should* be an IFP. I.e. if two concept nodes have the same indicator they should be merged. [i.e. scrap this idea: (?x skos:indicator ?i) (?y skos:indicator ?i) -> (?x > skos-map:exactMatch ?y)] Al. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ > (Alistair) > > Sent: 06 October 2004 14:23 > To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org' > Subject: FW: subject indicators ... ? > > > > >AJM said: > Also I wasn't talking about identifying concepts in relation > to *someone > elses* indicators, although this would be a possibility [with the > implication that (?x skos:indicator ?i) (?y skos:indicator ?i) -> (?x > skos-map:exactMatch ?y)]. > > So I just realised that, if allowed to be used in this way, > of course a > 'skos:indicator' type property *should not* be an IFP. > > An alternative name has been suggested to me, something > involving the word > 'indicative' ... e.g. 'indicativeRepresentation' > 'indicativeResource' ... > just throwing ideas out, hoping to work towards a name that > reflects well > the intended usage. > > 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 Leonard Will > > Sent: 05 October 2004 16:49 > > To: public-esw-thes@w3.org > > Subject: Re: subject indicators ... ? > > > > > > > > In message > > <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C6E@exchange11.rl.ac.uk> > > on Tue, 5 > > Oct 2004, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote > > >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. > > > > I would think that the only place you would find a suitable > > *complete* > > description would be within a knowledge organisation scheme > that had > > been compiled in accordance with the standards that you are > > using. Are > > you then just in the situation of borrowing elements from > > other KOSs - > > i.e. merging or mapping? > > > > >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'. > > > > What could an "indicator" be if it pointed to a web resource > > but was not > > a URI? I thought that a URI was a general name for something that > > pointed to a web resource. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "content-negotiable". > > > > 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 Thursday, 7 October 2004 13:34:44 UTC