- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:51:20 +0100
- To: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
- CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I haven't been following this discussion in detail I'm afraid but just wanted to respond on one technical point. John McClure wrote: > The problem begins with skos:subject whose range is a skos:Concept. From what > I've learned, a skos:Concept when instantiated is an owl:Thing. This means > skos:subject cannot reference an rdfs:Class. This means that regardless of how > comprehensive an ontology bound to a document is, none of its classes can be > referenced as indicative of the subject of a text unit. That's not, in fact, the case. You are correct that using skos:subject to reference an rdfs:Class would take you out of OWL/DL into OWL/full but using any property other than rdf:type to reference an rdfs:Class from an individual would do the same. You have no choice but to be in OWL/full for thesaurus usage. In OWL/full then OWL:Thing has the same extent as rdfs:Resource and so includes instances of rdfs:Class. So I don't believe there is any problem using skos:subject to refer to things which are also rdfs:Classes if that is what you chose to do. Dave
Received on Friday, 22 July 2005 07:52:12 UTC