Re: [SKOS] ACTION on relating skos:Concept to a foaf:Person

> On Friday 22 June 2007 08:17, wrote:
>> Thanks, your mail clarifies a lot. In fact your two problems
>> (concept-concept linking and concept-object linking) are linked
>> because it is so in your interface...
>> Unfortunately I guess one could spend weeks finding this "means"
>> common superproperty of the "semantically equivalent concept" (the
>> tag-concept link) and "reference" (the tag-object link) properties
>> you need for your app, if it exists.
>> In the meantime, I would propose as a cheap solution that the UI
>> deals with the problem it has raised.
> Actually, the UI allready has support for that. The problem isn't that 
> it can't deal with it, the problem is that the users can't deal with 
> it... :-) Since I did anticipate the problem when creating the UI, I 
> created support for it, but our users feel it is too complex, so I will 
> have to remove that feature and deal with it elsewhere... 
>> Your app could just detect the rdf:type of this resource; if it is a
>> skos:Concept, then you create a 'semantically equivalent concept'
>> triple between the tag and the concept. If it is something else, then 
>> we can assume it belongs to the 'real world' realm and the app would
>> create a 'reference' triple between the tag and the object.
> Indeed, I have thought about that too, and I was thinking more about on 
> the way home yesterday, and in fact, I think it prompts a elaborated 
> POWDER use case and a requirement, we need a clear rdf:type for the 
> description. So, I'll write up that. 
I'll be interested to read it. This topic is quite interesting (even if 
you go for the case with the generation of the 2 different links based 
on the type of the resource filled by the user) , if you have time in 
the coming weeks we should try to formalize it as a SKOS use case. I 
thnk the first link (semntic equivalence between concepts) is a nice 
concept scheme mapping case, while the second will provide more flesh 
for a possible requirement on representing reference of skos:Concept.
>> I agree that this proposal is not optimal: you could argue that if
>> there is an interface need, there is some evidence of a modelling
>> need. But given the complexity of the problem and my limited
>> knowledge, I cannot offer you something else in one week. 
> Heh, actually, the time has shrunk to four hours now... We're freezing 
> at 15:00 today, so what has not been done by then I would just need to 
> document next week and hope for someone to pick it up.
Good luck, and sorry for giving only limited help.



Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 08:23:51 UTC