RE: SKOS and MeSH qualifiers

Al --

This sounds marvelous: simple (post facto, of course) and accurate. And
yes, you are right that the groups of allowed qualifiers are often
repeated.

Thanks for this,
-- Robert

--------------------
Robert Watkins
rwatkins@foo-bar.org
--------------------

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

>
> One way to represent the relationship between a MeSH descriptor and a MeSH qualifier would be to model both descriptors and qualifiers as resources of type skos:Concept, and then to create a custom semantic relation property e.g. mesh:allowedQualifier as a sub-property of skos:related.
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> The other thing I'm thinking is that certain families of mesh descriptors will all have the same allowed qualifiers.  If this relates to the type of the concept (and MeSH does include a basic type scheme if I remember rightly?) then you could declare classes of concept for each of these types, with OWL restrictions stating the allowed qualifiers.
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> This means you don't have to repeatedly declare the set of allowed qualifies for each concept.
>
> Personally I wouldn't use the collections vocabulary (skos:Collection, skos:member) to do this sort of thing, as the collections vocab is intended for a specific use case (node labels).
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al.
>

Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 13:14:38 UTC