- 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