- From: Dale Mead <dmead@nortel.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:37:50 -0600
- To: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
I have been lurking on this list for a few months trying to catch up with the discussion. My apologies in advance if my question is something that has been dealt with in previous discussions that I haven't found. Background for my question: We are a running a production semantic(ish) engine that maintains an enterprise thesaurus driving cataloging and facetted navigation for knowledge management and our corporate intranet. We currently have 45K Concepts with 500K+ documents associated with those concepts and have been in production since 1997. As part of an enterprise rearchitecture, we are looking at the feasibility of using SKOS as a vehicle for providing thesaural information to other enterprise systems outside of the KM, DM, and web domains as a web service. Most of what I see in SKOS maps very cleanly into what we have been doing for the last 10 years with the differences mainly being in what we called things and, of course, in that we aren't currently expressing in XML because XML was not yet a standard in 1997. The biggest delta is with skos:related. In my context, I need to be able to track not just that there exists a relationship, but what the nature of that relationship is. An easy example out of many: Product A is our product. Products B and C are products of a competitor. Product A is related to Product B as a competing product (which allows us to do things like put competitive intelligence materials about B on A's intranet page). Products A and C are related because Product A is compatible with Product C. That is, we can sell our Product A into an established Product C environment. The information that I want to give the sales person is our story about that compatibility rather than competitive information about Product C. I can easily come up with a couple of dozen other situations where I want typed relationships. My inclination is that I want to put an additional rdf attribute in the skos:related element to indicate the type of relationship. However, if I have been reading this discussions on this list correctly, I shouldn't be adding additional formal attributes within skos elements. (Is this a correct understanding?) Has this issue been addressed within the SKOS discussions?
Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2007 05:15:04 UTC