On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>: I agree that you have stated these as equivalents, but do you agree that > these two concepts use different identifiers? > > > kc > The constraint is stronger than that; If two Things have different preferred labels in a given language in the same conceptScheme, then it is necessarily true that they have different identifiers, *and* that the identifiers are owl:differentFrom. Notice that LCSH has different schemes for juvenile and non-juvenile headings (some of which have the same preferred label/Descriptor). Terms can be in different registers<http://www.ttt.org/clsframe/datcats02.html#register>without being in different languages. There's even an ISO registry of register - http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/1988 . Also, if distinct uris which refer to Concepts which exactMatch, the Concepts have the same extension, but the uris need not refer to the same Concept object (in fact, in the case discussed above, the URIs cannot be referring to the same object). BTW, SKOS explicitly declines to make exactMatch reflexive, though it does make it Symmetric and Transitive, which means that if A exactly matches anything, it exactly matches itself. Simon
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 21:33:11 UTC