- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:14:55 -0000
- To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Mark wrote: > What is the motivation to use a separate Collection vocabulary instead > of the standard RDF vocabulary? Does that have something to > do with the > special rules that are introduced for them (collectable > property rule)? This discussion relates to the following skos classes and properties: skos:Collection skos:OrderedCollection skos:CollectableProperty skos:member skos:memberList The initial requirement and some early possible solutions are presented with discussion at: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev_2fSkosCore_2fCollectionsAndArrays ... N.B. the solutions discussed here are precursors of the actual solution we acted on (see [1] for fonal proposal). Basically we opted against using rdf:Bag and rdf:Seq, because nobody likes them (see also emails linked from pros & cons section in above). Anyway, I'd like to propose that we keep the basic structure of this bit of SKOS Core the same for the moment. However I am concerned about the use of the name 'Collection' because it collides both with the RDF notion of a 'Collection' and the libraries/museum's notion of a 'Collection'. I have also seen the property 'skos:member' completely misconstrued. So I'd like to propose that we change the names of these props to something like: skos:ConceptGroup skos:OrderedConceptGroup skos:GroupableProperty skos:groupMember skos:groupMemberList How does that sound? Cheers, Al. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Oct/0072.html
Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 12:15:28 UTC