- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:41:26 +0100
- To: 'Leonard Will' <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
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