- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:54:07 -0500
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I noticed skos:isSubjectOf in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/ 15 February 2005 I have found rdfs:subClassOf to be awkward in a lot of cases; in retrospect, I wish we had called it rdfs:superclass. I also found skos:hasTopConcept. I didn't search exhuastively, so there may have been others. Does it really seem useful to define the inverses for these properties? skos:subject, skos:isSubjectOf, skos:primarySubject and skos:isPrimarySubjectOf. I think owl:inverseOf is fine for post-hoc declaration of inverses, but let's not make up aliases, even indirectly like this, if we can help it. It just makes dealing with this sort of data more expensive. p.s. see also http://esw.w3.org/topic/RoleNoun p.p.s. The draft says "This document is the First Public Working Draft" but it's not. Always keep the SOTD truthful, please. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:54:05 UTC