- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:45:46 +0100
- To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
This makes good sense to me.
Chaals
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:55:29 +0100, Bernard Vatant
<bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
>
>
> I also agree on leaving the skos:subject domain open. Seems to me that
> SKOS should be
> agnostic on the many possible ways concepts and concept schemes can be
> used for indexing,
> IMO no general inference on the class of a:foo should be possible from a
> general assertion
> I rather imagine the use of owl:Restriction to define that such type of
> resource is using
> such concept scheme, like e.g.
>
> Definition of eg:TechnicalConcept as the subClass of skos:Concept for
> which skos:inScheme
> value is eg:TechnicalTerminology
> Definition of eg:TechnicalDocument as class of resources being indexed
> by some
> eg:TechnicalConcept
>
>> From such declarations, I could e.g. entail that a given resource is a
>> TechnicalDocument,
> from the fact that it is indexed on a TechnicalConcept.
>
> Does that make sense?
--
Charles McCathieNevile - Vice Presidente - Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
(chaals is available for consulting at the moment)
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 19:54:33 UTC