- From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:02:54 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <e35499310510101402j213c411cr8f059f4d211488d5@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that concept and collection should be disjoint. In concept theory, a collection can be a descendent of a concept, and each item in the collection (which terminologists tend to think of as a set) is itself a concept, but the collection is just a way of containerizing these items that share a particular kind of relation to the initial concept. Sue Ellen On 10/10/05, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > > I see... > > "There is consensus that a 'node label' does not represent a label for a > concept in its own right" > > -- > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#seccollections > > > and just below it I see a diagram wherein > > ex:milk skos:narrower [ rdf:type skos:Collection ]. > > and we have skos:narrower rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:semanticRelation, > so that > > ex:milk skos:semanticRelation [ rdf:type skos:Collection ]. > > and > and skos:semanticRelation rdfs:range skos:Concept > so that > > ex:milk skos:semanticRelation > [ rdf:type skos:Collection, skos:Concept ]. > > so the collection is a concept after all. > > Please fix this inconsistency between the example and the prose one > way or another. > > I suggest keeping Collections and Concepts disjoint, and introducing > a narrowerCollection property. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > > > -- Sue Ellen Wright Institute for Applied Linguistics Kent State University Kent OH 44242 USA sellenwright@gmail.com swright@kent.edu sewright@neo.rr.com
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 21:03:00 UTC