- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:56:36 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: > SKOS is one layer of abstraction further removed from reality than > basic RDF, I guess I've seen it as another modeling style in parallel to Class/Instance modeling rather than a layer more abstract. > If several parties use SKOS and they have a concept in their > SKOS-expressed thesauri that stand for the person Alistair Miles, while > other parties simply write RDF statements about Alistair directly, we'd > imho benefit if we had some conventions for figuring out that they were > talking about the same thing. But they're not "the same thing" in the > conventional RDF/OWL sense, since the class Person and the class > skos:Concept are presumably disjoint. Ah I hadn't realize they were expected to be disjoint. I nearly wrote earlier that it you could simply have the bNode Al-as-foaf-Person also be an instance of skos:Concept. Then it could, for example, be directly attached to a thesaurus without this extra level of indirection and use owl:sameAs to indicate these correspondences. > Maybe skos:represents would work better as a name? Yes, possibly. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 15:56:43 UTC