Re: comment: WD 10 May 2005

+ 1
<quote who="Mark van Assem">
>
>
>> According to the thesaurus standards, the BT/NT relationship should be
>> used only for the three relationship types: class/subclass, whole/part
>> (in a limited number of specified cases), and class/instance.
>>
>> The problem is that many existing thesauri and other controlled
>> vocabulary lists do not conform strictly to these guidelines, either
>> through looseness of interpretation or because they think it will be
>> "helpful to users".  :-(
>
> I hope this pattern will not repeat itself for ontologies on the web
> using rdfs:Class/rdfs:subClassOf...
>
> Actually that is something we're helping to prevent; by expressing
> thesauri etc. in the SKOS vocabulary and not as classes etc. in RDF/OWL.
>
> Mark.
>
> --
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks
co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
[AOL] IM CarlCHECKMi

Received on Thursday, 21 July 2005 13:56:22 UTC