- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:37:57 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Dan, > 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. Will note this for new proposals, but for current terms I think we're stuck with what we've got i.e. changing URIs now would be too disruptive. > 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. We had several requests for these inverses, from implementors who find them useful, which is why they went in. > p.p.s. The draft says "This document is the First Public > Working Draft" > but it's > not. Always keep the SOTD truthful, please. Changed to 'This document is a W3C Editor's Working Draft' ... that OK? Cheers, Al.
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2005 18:38:30 UTC