- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:35:40 -0000
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Dan, OK now I'm totally back on your side :) This makes it very clear I think. > 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? I'd like to try and draft a short section for the guide as it is, just to point this up as an interesting discussion area (with maybe a few links to emails in the archive). Then we can attack it again later :) Cheers, Al.
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 12:36:12 UTC