Re: Only documents can have a skos:subject?

On 17 Dec 2006, at 15:30, Benjamin Nowack wrote:

> On 14.12.2006 18:23:20, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Quick question: I suppose that only documents can have a
>> skos:subject?
> Not necessarily, I think. Although the SKOS core guide still talks
> about "information resources" in the relevant section [1], this
> seems to be a bug left from an earlier version of the guide. The
> domain of skos:subject, which once was foaf:Document, was
> deliberately dropped to allow to attach skos:subject to non-info
> resources as well. At least that's how I understand the change note
> for skos:subject:
> [[
> The domain of this property changed to be unconstrained (was
> previously foaf:Document). The definition altered to reflect
> this (s/document/resource).
> ]]

Ah, interesting. Thanks.

> I'm not sure about directly linking persons to concepts, though.
> It sounds a bit odd in that case as "A concept that is a subject
> of the resource." would become "Philosophy is a subject of
> Wittgenstein" although it's arguably more the subject of his works
> and thoughts, or an interest/passion. But it may well be that SKOS
> is unconstrained enough to allow this sort of association.

The "foo is a subject of bar" interpretation sounds odd for anything  
except documents. "Buildings is a subject of the Eiffel Tower"  
doesn't really work either.

I wish there was a skos:in_category ...

I think for now I will just ignore these concerns and go ahead using  
skos:subject. Thus, if a biography of Wittgenstein has been  
categorized under "Philosophy", then I will categorize the guy  
himself under the same label.

Unless someone tells me right now that this will kill kittens.

Richard


>
> benjamin
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/#secindexing
>
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
>
> Kruppstr. 100
> 45145 Essen, Germany
> http://www.bnode.org/
>
>

Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 16:21:39 UTC