- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:01:32 +0100
- To: 'Lars Marius Garshol' <larsga@ontopia.net>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Lars wrote: > 1) xtm:subjectIndicatorRef is not an RDF property, but an XML > element type. I'm not sure it's good practice to treat XML > element types are RDF properties, but maybe it is. > One solution to this may be to define skos:subjectIndicator and then > just say in prose that it is semantically equivalent to the XTM (and > ISO 13250:200X, where X > 4) concept of a subject indicator. +1 I think it would be fine to just use prose to describe the equivalence between the SKOS and XTM notions of 'subject indicator' ... a 'skos:exactMatch' or 'owl:equivalentProperty' statement seems unnecessary at this time. > > 2) subjectIndicatorRef is a somewhat strange name for an RDF > property, since the property does not really constitute a > reference. Instead, it's saying that the object is the subject > indicator of the subject (subject of the RDF triple, that is). > This is a good point I think ... leading me to support the original name 'subjectIndicator' for the this SKOS property. Al. > > | Maybe it's too strong a commitment. > > I don't think it is. Not if you define the semantics to be the same. > > -- > Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 17:02:11 UTC