- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:36:00 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
[snip] I think we disagree slightly, but I accept that you're right about what Thesaurus authors think their data structures mean. The problem is probably easiest when we think about nodes in a thesaurus graph that 'stand for' individuals. I could have a node in SKOS thes I make that stands for you. Libby Miller might make a quite distinct SKOS thesaurus some years later, and also include a concept for you. There are then two things there, both concepts, but there's only one you. SKOS keeps the nodes separate, as I understand it, so that the node that really stands for you (ie. has an rdf:type of Person) carries properties such as age, favouriteSong, workplaceHomepage; while the two SKOS concept nodes have properties that are properties of conceptualisations of you (eg. dated 2004 or 2007, pointers to the scheme they come from, etc.). This is a re-hash of our discussion around the 'denotes', or 'stands for' or whatever property, I think... Maybe it can be postponed until after the first WD? Dan
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 18:36:01 UTC