- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:27:38 +0100
- To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Leonard >> I would live with skos:indexingConcept > > That seems reasonable, but I wonder whether this is within the scope > of SKOS anyway. Good question. > As far as I know, SKOS is a format for representing knowledge > organisation schemes. These schemes are usually independent of any > specific resources which they may be used to organise, so I don't see > that SKOS should be providing for records of resources. I see your point, and I agree there again in theory only. In a closed world, say a library or enterprise documentation system, I guess you're right. SKOS will be used to organize the KOS, and diverse applications will use it at will, using certainly various indexing pointers. But if you want to federate all that in an open world and ask "how is this concept used, by all means" (e.g., on the Web)? If you have a generic pointer, the query is much simpler to write. My view on that would be to define skos:indexingConcept as a generic and "abstract" property, with recommendation to use specific subproperties (such as dc:subject, for instance). > If you build a catalogue or database of resources, you make that > searchable by adding indexing terms as metadata to each resource > record. These terms may be copied into the catalogue record, or may > take the form of links to a thesaurus or other knowledge organisation > scheme, but I see this as being a function of the database, not > something that is held in the KOS. In this case define only skos:indexingConcept and its subproperties, not the inverse property. In Mondeca ITM, when you are in a workspace using a given concept, on the concept "page" you have a magic button "See indexed topics", which triggers a query retrieving all resources pointing to the concept in the data base, whatever the pointer. So, well it's an implementation feature of the data base, right. > We need to see the boundary between a scheme for organising knowledge > concepts and a scheme for cataloguing "documents" or resources. Not sure SKOS should make this distinction, and I'm not sure I make it clearly myself. What is the point of organizing concepts, if not for organizing resources? I would even say, pardon me it's Friday evening, what is the point of defining a concept at all, if not for cataloguing things? Have a nice week-end Bernard -- *Bernard Vatant *Knowledge Engineering ---------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Blog: Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 18:27:55 UTC