- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:25:05 -0500
- To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Tom,
Are hindsight arguments allowed? ;-)
I suspect that DCMI Types would be better modeled as OWL Classes. This
would put them in group 2.
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:thomasbaker49@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Baker
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:19 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Jodi Schneider; Tillett, Barbara; Mark van Assem; public-lld
> Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:06:28PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote:
> > IMO, "value vocabulary"/"SKOS Vocabulary"/etc. ("group 1") is an
> alias
> > for skos:ConceptScheme.
>
> Does that definition perhaps go too far? The DCMI Type
> Vocabulary [1] is a set of RDF classes, and I would call that a
> "value vocabulary".
>
> Tom
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H7
>
> --
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 02:26:00 UTC