- From: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:29:36 +0000
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Leonard Will wrote: > 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>. > > Not all the terms in that glossary have been agreed by the BS working > party, but "document" is unchanged from the current draft standard. Thanks for the comment. The issue for me isn't so much "what kinds of things have subjects?", for which "Documents" is a reasonable, general answer as long as you take a broad enough view view of what a document is. Rather, my question is why foaf:document, and does skos:subject need to state that its domain is foaf:document? The problem I'm seeing is that if I state in my KB: ianKB:foobar skos:subject someOnt:Whatever . then my OWL reasoner will entail: ianKB:foobar rdf:type foaf:Document . and hence ianKB:foobar rdf:type <http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Document> . (using Dan's wordnet ontology, which is not, as an aside, the actual wordnet ontology my KB is using), and a bunch of other entailed statements from the FOAF and wordnet vocabularies. It's all adding a fair amount to the search space the reasoner has to explore, so I understand the cost ... I just wasn't clear on the benefit. For the time being, I've decided to coin my own predicate to play the role of linking information-bearing resources to skos:Concepts, rather than re-use skos:subject. But it's a shame not to re-use terminology that is already specified. Regards, Ian
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 12:30:10 UTC