- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:02:59 +0000
- To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Leonard Will wrote: > In message <4219BB99.9020207@hp.com> on Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Ian Dickinson > <ian.dickinson@hp.com> wrote > >> >> I notice that skos:subject has a rdfs:domain of foaf:Document. >> Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there a reason for >> this? I would have thought that resources other than documents (and >> indeed, FOAF's particular take on what a document is) can be >> classified by a SKOS concept. > > > In the draft British Standard for thesaurus construction we have used > "document" with a very broad meaning, equivalent to "information > resource" - it is just more convenient to have one word rather than two.. > > That definition is given in <http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/glossary.htm>. That defintion of "document" is certainly very general (it includes people, buildings etc). Whilst foaf:Document is pretty generally I don't think it is supposed to be quite that general. For example, it would presumably be surprising to find something that is both a foaf:Person and a foaf:Document. It would make sense to me to leave the domain of skos:subject undefined or to define a skos:Document which is as general as that defined in your glossary. Dave
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 12:03:29 UTC