W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2014

Re: TGN place types (broader/narrower spanning ConceptSchemes)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:11:50 +0200
Message-ID: <534B9846.5080105@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

> (Not sure why we're writing about CRM here, but here goes :-)
>>> - a reification E17_Type_Assignement (longcut) together with P42_assigned and P41_classified
>>> But note that there's no way to say when a Type stopped being used:
>>> there is E15_Identifier_Assignement.P38_deassigned, but no similar property for E17_Type_Assignement
>> Hmm. I'm not sure I understand the need to define a property as specific as P38, which couldn't be applied to another kind of assignment...
> Yep.
> There are other similar omissions, e.g. you can state Preferredness of an identifier but not Title nor Image.
>> Anyway, I believe it would be acceptable to use whatever property CRM has for the ending of a (long) event.
> There are P81b, P82b (end of inner/outer bounds) that apply to Time-Span that applies to any Period/Event.
> However, there are no standard types to state "Period of use/existence/activity of something", such as:
> - use of an Appellation or Title
> - life of a Person
> - floruit of a Person
> - period of group membership or profession of a Person (e.g. reign)
> --
>>> the thesaurus people would explain better than me why skos:broader has no relation to rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf
> Antoine> I'm not sure I count as 'thesaurus people' but I was closely involved in SKOS...
>> In fact the idea of having BTI = rdf:type and BTG = rdfs:subClassOf was strong when we considered making the old SKOS extension in
>> the standard... But it seemed to us going a bridge too far
> You absolutely count as one of the thesaurus people :-)
> So: the idea was considered seriously, but not adopted.

Yes. But please note that this shouldn't be interpreted as a definitive view on the issue. It was just a time-bound one: back then, we felt we couldn't make it. Two years from now, the decision (or just the basis for the decision) may be different. Interest and contributions on this topic are getting quite numerous now, so there is more ground.

Received on Monday, 14 April 2014 08:12:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:36 UTC