- From: Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:46:18 +0100
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Cc: <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, "'Stella Dextre Clarke'" <stella@lukehouse.org>, "'ZENG, MARCIA'" <mzeng@kent.edu>, "'Gregg Garcia'" <GGarcia@getty.edu>
The specific topic was how to order the children of a *Concept*. I take Leonard's suggestion to use an *anonymous* subordinateArray under the concept. Does anyone have a better suggestion? -- This below is about ordering in general. > Ordering is not so common (not saying that it's super-rare, but it's certainly not the majority of cases). Most applications (except the > very applications that are dedicated to building or viewing 'ordered schemes') that we've seen don't really use them. I had the same hunch... Does anyone know any TMS (thesaurus management system) that consumes the rdf:List of a skos:OrderedCollection? It's a bit tricky to produce that list, but it *is* the current standard way, so we'll do it. Gregg, given a parent P and its *ordered* children C1..Cn, can you come up with queries to return: - <P,C1> - <P,Ci,Ci+1> for i=1..n-1 - <P,Cn> We'll also use 2 more mechanisms: - custom field gvp:sortOrder - store triples in order (a total order of concepts that respects their sibling order). OWLIM happens to preserve order in result sets > The current skos:(Order)Collection construct has the benefit of not standing in the path of consuming data. It is really an extra layer on > top of the simple hierarchy. People interested in the order can exploit it if they want. Those who don't care will very safely ignore it. Oh, I agree with the rdf:List construct. What was missing until now was a way to put it under a concept or another collection. ISO adds that.
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 08:47:10 UTC