- From: Morten Frederiksen <mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:11:01 +0200
- To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi, On Tuesday 21 September 2004 19:40, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > skos:isSubjectOf a rdf:Property; > owl:inverseOf dc:subject; > rdfs:range rdf:Resource; > vs:term_status 'unstable'. This looks good to me. > skos:primarySubject a rdf:Property; > rdfs:subPropertyOf dc:subject; > vs:term_status 'unstable'. The FOAF equivalent foaf:primaryTopic is an owl:FunctionalProperty, but I'm not sure about the consequences re Full/DL if this were to be declared as such. > skos:isPrimarySubjectOf a rdf:Property; > rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:isSubjectOf; > owl:inverseOf skos:primarySubject; > vs:term_status 'unstable'. Likewise, this could be declared as an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. I think it would be a good idea to define the range and domain, respectively, of the last two, as skos:Concept, to keep people like me from misusing them in other contexts. :-) At least if the expectation will be that the object/subject is in fact a Concept. /me thinks in passing about using a skos:Concept as the object of foaf:depicts... Regards, Morten
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 19:13:55 UTC