- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:11:28 +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: > * Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-09-29 16:20+0100] > >>What if the definition of 'skos:denotes' was something like ... >> >>'The OWL Individual or Class that this concept corresponds to.' > > > We could drop 'OWL' there, since this works for generic RDF/RDFS too. > > It puts a lot of work onto the word 'corresponds', but I could live with > this. Yes, that seems more comprehensible. One question is whether there is any semantics here. If there is no semantics then it'd be worth mentioning that e.g. "An Individual or Class that this Concept corresponds to. There is no formal semantics carried by this relationship but it indicates that the SKOS Concept and the corresponding Class/Instance both refer to the same 'thing' that in a way that outside of the formal model." If there is some semantics it would be worth spelling those out (but I'm assuming not). Dave
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 16:11:35 UTC