- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:57:39 +0100
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi, I agree that it's better to leave the skos:subject domain open. But then skos:subject only defines a range, skos:Concept. In that case, what is the use of skos:subject when compared to dc:subject? Maybe the rule attached to it in [1]? [(?d skos:subject ?x)(?x skos:broader ?y) implies (?d skos:subject ?y)] If not, a recommendation in the Guide to use dc:subject for indexing purposes would be enough. Mark. ------- [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#subject Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > 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? > > -- Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 12:57:42 UTC