- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:55:58 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Mikael Nilsson <mini@nada.kth.se>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: >Hi all, > >I think we need to stay practical here and focus on the use cases (or we'll be here until the end of existence :). > >Danbri's original use case is something like this (Danbri please correct me if I'm wrong): > >Blogger A uses some category C to categorise blog items. > >Blogger B uses some category D to categorise blog items. > >Blogger's A and B realise that categories C and D are really about the same thing, and want to express that so that both their blog feeds can be harvested and sensibly merged. > >The inverse property pair 'skos:it' and 'skos:as' were originally proposed in response to this use case. > >I.e. blogger A says 'C skos:it X' and blogger B says 'D skos:it X' and they both live happily every after. > > You missed out one more part. That we have some other data, expressed in non-SKOS RDF. For example, consider X being some Person, with claims about that Person described in FOAF and related vocabs. Or X being some place, and lat/long info, and other geo/mapping data. Etc. Etc. In each case, we are gaining value (hopefully :) by binding together information expressed in term of the thing ITself, against information associated with its representation AS a SKOS 'concept'. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 14:55:38 UTC