Re: Question on skos:subject domain

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