- From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:32:14 +0100
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Antoine, you wrote: > I have indeed nothing against introducing a superclass > (ConceptGrouping?) of ConceptScheme and Collection that would be the > domain of "member" (or the range of a renamed "inscheme"). I am however > unconfortable with declaring one as the subclass of the other, since > their logics seems slightly different (CS group concepts to define > vocabularies, Collection group concepts for structuring the content of a > vocabulary) So is Collection for "structuring" and CS to "define vocabularies"? Isn't "defining a vocabulary" always a way of "structuring"? My first motivation was to create an easy way to group concept schemes and so I came to the question what skos:member and skos:inScheme mean. There are four cases to be covered by SKOS: 1. the membership of a concept to a concept scheme (inScheme?) 2. the membership of a concept to a collection (member?) 3. the membership of a concept scheme to a concept scheme (?) 4. the membership of a collection to a collection (member?) Point 3 is not defined yet. Furthermore the semantics have to be clarified: which membership is transitive? which membership implies another membership relation? > If you allow for nested concept schemes, then "member" should be > transitive (if a concept C1 is a member of CS1 which is a member of CS2 > then C1 is a member of CS2). But this doesn't work for nested > collection, as you rightly put it in [3]: if C1 is a member of Coll1 > which is a member of Coll2 then C1 is not a member of Coll2 Well, I am not sure why you need "if a concept C1 is a member of CS1 which is a member of CS2 then C1 is a member of CS2". We should better define what "beeing a member of a Collection" means compared to "beeing in a scheme". 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 Thursday, 31 January 2008 12:32:52 UTC