- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:52:00 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, 'Thomas Baker' <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Salut from me too,
> I think that it is not a good idea for the SKOS specification to try and
> equate a namespace with a set of concepts described as a "scheme". If I want
If I understand namespaces correctly, they are only a way to provide
unique names. If so, a particular namespace is not a "coherent" set of
classes and properties. (Although this usually is the case, a namespace
does not imply this.) The SKOS "concept scheme/space" does have this
stronger meaning (if I interpret the spec correctly).
>>name *inside the concept space* before being ported to the RDF format. So an obvious
>>migration practice will certainly be to use a single RDF namespace to somehow represent
>>the concept space. I don't know if that should be recommended by the specification, or
Probably it is a good practice, but if the above argument holds, the
concept scheme and inScheme property are still needed to provide the
stronger meaning of a coherent set.
With regards,
Mark.
--
Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 15:52:08 UTC