- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:07:50 +0200
- To: "Joseph Tennis" <jtennis@interchange.ubc.ca>
- Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "Stuart Sutton" <sasutton@u.washington.edu>
(Oops, after typing this I noticed the posts that followed - apologies
if there are points already made I missed)
On 8/28/06, Joseph Tennis <jtennis@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
> 1. SKOS postulates a concept exists independent of a scheme
Ok.
> 2. This means that a concept can exist in many schemes (further demonstrated
> by SKOS's inScheme)
Ok.
> 3. However, each scheme delimits the meaning of a concept by its
> relationships with other concepts in the scheme.
Does the scheme do the delimiting, or the set of other concepts?
(which as stated in 1. exist independent of a scheme).
> 4. Change notes, as properties of concepts, are not linked to the scheme in
> which the change applies.
Ok, this seems to be the nub...
> 5. We are left to ask: how do we model scheme specific changes to concepts
> without signaling a new URI?
- so why is this a problem?
> You can see an illustration of the problem at:
> http://www.ischool.washington.edu/sasutton/skos/Concept_History_New.html
An excellent illustration, although a little more info on the
motivation - the kind of case which leads to this problem - would be
helpful.
> You can also see how we are trying to solve the problem: by introducing an
> ConceptInstance as well as a Concept. This too can be seen at the above
> URL.
With ConceptInstance it does seem like you're still in effect minting
new Concepts...I'm not entirely clear on why doing this directly would
be a problem.
My naive impression is that this could cause problems later, as it's
modifying (/adding to) the Concept part, when (if I understand
correctly) the problem is actually with the modelling of scheme
changes. This looks like an n-ary relation tying together a specific
scheme, specific change note and (common) concept.
A change note which applied to both to a concept and a scheme might
help, but there's a snag in that changeNote/historyNote are
properties. I wonder if you made a class Note this might help:
Concept
historyNote
Note
associatedWithScheme
ConceptScheme
Or maybe you could maybe start from the scheme, with a subclass
AnnotatedScheme which could include a collection of change notes.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 09:14:39 UTC