- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:17:07 -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>
> > It would be odd to dismiss SKOS because we determined it was designed > to > > manage "concepts" rather than "controlled vocabularies". > > I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss SKOS! The point is that > SKOS organizes sets of lexical strings via underlying concepts. I would argue that "organizing" concepts or labels is getting into optional features of SKOS. Your other comments indicate you would agree. The essential features for authority control, in my view, are the ability to identify something real (a skos:Concept), associate them in a scheme (via skos:inScheme) and give them skos:pref/altLabels (potentially "real" via skosxl:Label). Some forms of authority control may want to use additional gravy from SKOS, but others could just as well link out to other models via foaf:focus and organize from there. Either or both ways, SKOS can act as a schematic naming network. Jeff
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 22:18:00 UTC