- 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