RE : Are the following statements valid?

Dear Simon,

All your quotations make sense to me.
The problem with 5 is that in an open world as the semantic web, we can define the extension of a concept, but it's much more difficult to access (at least more than in traditional library databases where, despite the acquisition of new books, you can still access *all* the documents about a given subject). And if several sources use a same concept they might use different flavors for the "indexing" link, or one could just produce crap indexes...
I can understand the reluctance of some people to have SKOS introduce skos:subject on the grouind that it will define the extension of concepts. In practice, it would just help to access a (maybe debatable) part of its extension. Which is still better than nothing imho.

Antoine


-------- Message d'origine--------
De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Simon Spero
Date: lun. 28/01/2008 00:53
À: SKOS
Objet : Are the following statements valid?
 
[I just want to check if the following assumptions are generally  
acceptible . If 5 is ok, it makes some arguments easier  ]

A Concept in SKOS represents "a unit of thought [..] combining some or  
all of the characteristics of a concrete or abstract, real or  
imaginary object." (Z39.19, p. 4)
Concepts are represented in textual forms by  indexing terms.    
(Z39.19, p. 6).
indexing is the process of assigning indexing terms to content objects  
(Z39.19 p6).
Content objects are things which convey information/data. (Z39.19, p.  
4).
The extension of a concept is the set of all content objects which  
(are? could be?)  indexed with indexing terms corresponding to that  
concept.