- From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:26:24 +0100
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Dear Antoine and all, Antoine wrote: > I'm sorry but I don't fully understand your objections: what I call > "categorization"(or whatever the proper name be) in wikipedia is indeed > linked to an application, the one that will return a set of documents > that are relevant for the "history of the internet" each time I browse > this category. And the success of this application is dependent on the > way the link between documents and categories are related. In the Wikipedia case a set of documents is returned, in other cases it could be a set of people, a set of countries, or any other records. Frankly you cannot link to a person but only to a record that represents the person so in the end everything is a document - but not a document the the common understanding of "document". > I agree that the relation we are searching for connects a concept to a > resource, but I think it should have more semantics: otherwise you could > use it to represent a link between one concept and the resource standing > for its creator, who might have very little to do with this subject the > concept resource stands for. And I do think we can refer to a class of > document description and/or retrieval applications that share enough > commonalities to give a precise (or inprecise) enough idea of what these > semantics are. After reader your comments I'd prefer to call the relation skos:indexedWith, but I doubt that such changes in the naming of relations will be made to keep compatible with the previous draft. Greetings, Jakob -- Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 09:27:13 UTC