- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:37:15 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:35:25PM +0200, Dan Brickley wrote: > (and 'standsFor' seems the best > current candidate, thanks Antoine) it'd probably be best to do so in > the next week. My gut instinct however is to stay with foaf:focus if > we can characterise it in terms that acknowledge some relationship to > prior usage. +1 "standsFor", or possibly "conceptFor". It's not clear to me why Bernard's "referent" would not work, other than that it vaguely promises an underlying theory; picture people straining to recall what they may once have read about Saussure... +1 to swap out "focus" in the next week if a clear consensus were to emerge. Thanks to Al for oiling the brain coils with more "creative" options...! :-) -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 15:37:53 UTC