- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:52:12 -0000
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
.. And another thing - Dan you use wordnet nouns as classes. Isn't that folding the layers of indirection? Cheers, Al. --- Alistair Miles Research Associate CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440 > -----Original Message----- > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ > (Alistair) > Sent: 04 February 2005 16:45 > To: Dan Brickley > Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org > Subject: Indirection > > > > Hi Dan, playing devil's advocate ... > > > [[ > > SKOS Core is an extension of the RDF model [ref], which is > in turn an > > extension of the graph data model [ref]. For an explanation of these > > concepts, please refer to [ref]. The reader of this guide > > should have at > > least a basic understanding of the RDF model and the graph > data model. > > ]] > > > > This needs a little rewrite. The term 'RDF model' is unfashionable, > > post-RDFCore. It used to mean, roughtly, 'graph data model', but > > now evokes Model Theory etc. SKOS isn't a 'semantic > extension' to the > > RDF model theory; this wording could give the impression it is. > > Why can't SKOS Core be a 'semantic extension' to the RDF model theory? > > > It can be useful to > > understand the subtle, layered relationship between SKOS and RDF, > > particularly when building applications that combine SKOS data with > > other information modeled using RDF. > > Your gonna hate me, but ... > > > This is the SKOS approach. Technically, it creates an extra > > layer of indirection, so that from the RDF point of view we are > > describing things such as 'The concept of Economic > > integration', rather > > than <em>Economic integration<em> itself. > > ... what's the difference? > > Seriously, if I say ... > > ex:A a skos:Concept. > ex:B a rdfs:Class. > > ... what fundamental commitments have I made about the > natures of ex:A and ex:B? > > And what if I say ... > > ex:C a skos:Concept; a rdfs:Class. > > ... which inevitably will happen. What does that mean? > > ***We need an answer on whether skos:Concept and rdfs:Class > should be disjoint.*** > > If we don't make an explicit statement about this, they will > be used as if they are not disjoint. > > And if we believe they should be disjoint, we need to be able > to explain exactly what you gain by keeping them disjoint. > > The 'two levels of abstraction' explanation is hard to grasp. > If we want to enforce two levels of abstraction, we're going > to have to explain ourselves *extremely* well, and we're > going to have to dangle a bloody big carrot. > > Or have I just asked, 'can a person ever get out of their own head?' > > Taoists need not respond :) > > Al. > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 16:52:44 UTC