- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:29:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: 'Bernard Vatant' <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
The idea is something like a "definedBy" property, except that it means "definedBy" in a human-readable sense, right? I agree with Bernard that there is a problem in making it an IFP, which is a bit like the one that can arise if foaf:homepage is an IFP. If two people work for the same organisation, and co-own it, that doesn't normally mean they are the same person. Likewise if Bernard uses a particular piece of my writing as an explanation of "a bad idea" and I use it as an explanation of "a good idea", we risk running into problems, because we would be obliged to consider the concepts as the same. foaf:mbox works more often because it generally matches the real world where one person has one email address. But that isn't always true - there are plenty of people with no email address, and for many years I have had shared email addresses - which for people I shared with were often their only one. Concepts are harder to pin down, I think. So I would stick to the less precise world of having definitions and examples - a definition might be an IFP. Or might not... cheers Chaals On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > >Hi Bernard, > >Thanks alot for your comments, I hoped you would say something on this. > >> What do you imagine would be the range of >> skos:SubjectIndicator in that case? Would you leave it open? Or what? >> > >I was imagining to restrict the range of a proposed property >'skos:subjectIndicator' (or just 'skos:indicator' might be better?) to >resources. So the usage would be e.g. ... > ><skos:Concept> > <skos:prefLabel>bananas</skos:prefLabel> > <skos:indicator rdf:resource="http://somewhere.org/somedoc.html"/> ></skos:Concept> > >> having >> >> skos:subjectIndicator rdf:type >> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty >> >> would imply considering the object of skos:subjectIndicator >> as an Individual >> >> I'm not sure it's such a good idea. > >I may well be missing something here, by why might it be a bad idea? > >For comparison, FOAF [1] has an inverse-functional property 'foaf:homepage', >which allows you to uniquely identify e.g. a person, organisation, or >company etc. (i.e. the owner of that homepage).
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 16:29:12 UTC