- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:06:36 +0100
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Mark Mark van Assem a écrit : > Hi Bernard, > > Thanks for the nice summary! Missed the middle part of the discussion > so took me a while before I understood that IFP = > inverseFunctionalProperty ;) Oops. > > Another option (a variant on the last one you mention) would be to > drop subjectIndicator's IFP and instead have a reasoning rule in SKOS > that asserts skos:exactMatch between skos:subjects with the same > subjectIndicator. That protects from wrong usage of the > subjectIndicator and consequent unwanted owl:sameAs statements. Golden > rule is that if it is possible to use something wrongly it WILL happen ;) Hmm. I don't know if we want too many things like those "reasoning rules" in SKOS ... > > In this solution the skos:subject values can come from existing > vocabularies, which still sounds more attractive to me than blank > nodes, because a blank node does not give any information beside the > subjectIndicator. Well, that's all the point. See my answer to Stuart. It does not have to bear any information, besides acting as a semantic hub/buffer. > Another negative point for blank nodes is that in those solutions, > someone wanting to fill in a skos:subject value needs to find an > appropriate subjectIndicator first... each time s/he wants to annotate > something. A lot more work than selecting from a fixed vocabulary. I miss your point here. The blank concept does not prevent to index directly on the named concepts, it is used only to bind concepts to some common subject indicator, and that is a process independent of indexing. Could be before, after, behind the scene ... x:myDoc skos:subject a:Concept1 y:yourDoc skos:subject b:Concept2 That is usual indexing on regular, named concepts. Then : hey, those concepts seem both to be broadly indicated by z:foo.html And there enters the blank node buffer ... Bernard <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 17:06:46 UTC