- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:15:04 +0200
- To: Rob Tice <rob.tice@k-int.com>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Rob Tice wrote: > Hi Dan > > Thanks for the post and the use case, but is this not actually a 'work > around' for the constraints of the SKOS semantic relationship model. > > Wouldn't SKOS benefit from an actual equivalence relationship for those > specific use cases when using labels for equivalence is not sufficient > (apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere :)). Wouldn't this > then be a more consistent model than exact match being utilised between > concepts in the same scheme. For strong equivalence, owl:sameAs between 'x', and 'y' is a way of saying that x and y are the self-same thing. I don't see a lot of living space between 'exact match' and total identity. My point here was just to show there might be use cases for same-scheme exact match relations. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the existing relationships are enough... cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 12:15:45 UTC