W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2004

Re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] skos:denotes

From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:50:29 +0100
Message-ID: <HDT6+VGF46cBFAO8@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

In message <4173955E.5010703@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Dave 
Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote
>The broad proposal is fine by me. I just have some reservations about this bit:
>> (3) Add a new property 'skos:denotesIndividual' to SKOS Core, with domain
>> skos:Concept and range rdf:Resource, *as a sub-property of
>> skos:denotesSameAs*.
>Leonard Will said that thesaurus concepts, and thus presumably skos 
>concepts, are never individuals but can be classes with one member.

I don't think I said that they can never be individuals, and indeed if a 
class is defined in such a way that it can never contain more than one 
member (typically by specifying a unique proper name and/or further 
identifying characteristics) then I don't see the distinction between an 
individual and a "class-of-one" or the need for separate terms to 
distinguish these.

1. Within a thesaurus the individual can be related to any broader 
classes to which it belongs by the "broader term instantive" 
relationship, if the simple "broader term" relationship is thought 

2. When assigning terms to documents (i.e. resources) then we can use 
the expressions suggested by Al on 4th October:

>>Can't we do 'skos:subject' for this?
>>I think 'skos:subject' fits better with the other proposed properties 
>>'skos:isSubjectOf', 'skos:primarySubject' and 
>>(i.e. usage: 'concept X skos:isSubjectOf document d' ... which would 
>>be the inverse of 'document d skos:subject concept X')

A concept may _be_ a physical "real world" resource such as Al, teapots 
or Ben Nevis, and it is labelled by a term which we can call a 
descriptor, preferred term, preferred label or similar. This is all 
within the thesaurus, not the catalogue (to use terminology that I 

Any other resource which is linked to that concept in the catalogue is 
not the thing itself, but  may be a surrogate,  metadata description or 
a document _about_ that resource. In that case the link "subject" as 
suggested above seems appropriate.

>This would suggest that skos:denotesIndividual is either not required 
>or should not be a sub-property of skos:denotesSameAs. Rather the 
>nearest equivalent would be "denotesTheClassComprisingThisIndividual" - 
>well perhaps a shorter name :-) but that sentiment.

I don't see the need for any of these complications :-)

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 Monday, 18 October 2004 12:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:04 UTC