RE: candidate and deprecated concepts

Just to clarify on this point:

At the moment, you can publish a set of concepts without any reference to a
concept scheme.

You can then state that 'concept X is a part of scheme Y,' or 'scheme Y
contains concept X,' which is the basis for building concept schemes with
concepts from different sources.

Crucially, you *can* also define and publish semantic relationships between
concepts, without any reference to a concept scheme.

What you *cannot* do with SKOS Core at the moment is explicitly state that
'semantic relationship R is a part of scheme Y,' or 'scheme Y contains
semantic relationship R.'

If this is a strong requirement (and consensus so far suggests that it is)
then I can suggest two ways of solving this:

 (1) [Explicit Membership Solution]: Allow usage of the skos:inScheme (or
analagous property) with reified RDF statements that represent semantic
relationships between concepts.

 (2) [Provenance Solution]: As part of the properties of the concept scheme,
introduce a new property that allows you to state e.g. 'concept scheme X
consists of the set of RDF statements loaded from resource Y'.

What do we reckon?

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: 11 October 2004 20:57
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: candidate and deprecated concepts
> 
> 
> 
> In message
> <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C9C@exchange11.rl.ac.uk> on Mon,
> 11 Oct 2004, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote
> >Within a semantic web context I think it makes better sense 
> to think of the
> >first step being for an authority (or individual) to publish 
> a set of concepts.
> >Concept schemes may then be described a posteriori to include all or
> >some of these published concepts.  This allows for schemes to be
> >described that include concepts from multiple sources.  I.e. 
> a concept has
> >an existence and a publication status that is independent of 
> the schemes
> >(or scheme versions) which it participates in.
> 
> I think it would be difficult to publish a set a concepts "in the
> abstract" without any implicit relationships between them, whether you
> call this a "scheme" or not. The problem is that the usual way of
> defining a concept is to say what broader concept it is a 
> member of, and
> then specify the ways in which it is differentiated from other members
> of that broader concept.
> 
> E.g.    "A child is_a person less than 18 years old"
>         "An insect is_an invertebrate with a jointed body and 
> six legs"
>         "Physics is_a science which deals with matter and energy"
> 
> Thus in the act of defining concepts you define hierarchical
> relationships to other concepts. You may be able to specify additional
> relationships of all kinds between concepts to make a more complex
> scheme, but that is additonal to the hierarchy inherent in the
> definitions.
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:41:59 UTC