- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:36:54 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Alistair,
> I think we could fit this into the model, but I'd like to make sure we do it only where appropriate and absolutely necessary. Hence I'd like for us to review a good set of requirements before making any design decisions. So if you could describe the scenarios you have encountered where notes are usefully associated with non-preferred terms, that would be very helpful.
From one point of view ("maintenance", "future extensions" or
whatever you might call it) the class approach has the advantage that
you can always attach properties to terms, e.g. properties that might
turn out to be really useful somewhere in the future (i.e. stuff we
cannot anticipate now).
Another reason is that Terms get a URI so that they can be referred
to. In the WordNet TF, this is a motivation to assign URIs to
WordSenses, instead of using blank nodes. You can then use WordSenses
e.g. to annotate texts. Similar uses might be envisioned for SKOS terms.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:37:09 UTC