W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: skos:related typing

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:22:14 +0100
Message-ID: <47720F36.7020306@mondeca.com>
To: Dale Mead <dmead@nortel.com>
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Dale

At first sight, and unless I miss something more subtle, your problem 
could be managed simply using subproperties of skos:related.
You will have for example

ex:compatibleWith   rdfs:subPropertyOf      skos:related

This kind of declaration allows your application to handle any specific 
functionalities you want to attach to ex:compatibleWith, and a vanilla 
skos application would handle it as any skos:related property.


Dale Mead a écrit :
> I have been lurking on this list for a few months trying to catch up
> with the discussion.  My apologies in advance if my question is
> something that has been dealt with in previous discussions that I
> haven't found.
> Background for my question:  We are a running a production semantic(ish)
> engine that maintains an enterprise thesaurus driving cataloging and
> facetted navigation for knowledge management and our corporate intranet.
> We currently have 45K Concepts with 500K+ documents associated with
> those concepts and have been in production since 1997.
> As part of an enterprise rearchitecture, we are looking at the
> feasibility of using SKOS as a vehicle for providing thesaural
> information to other enterprise systems outside of the KM, DM, and web
> domains as a web service.
> Most of what I see in SKOS maps very cleanly into what we have been
> doing for the last 10 years with the differences mainly being in what we
> called things and, of course, in that we aren't currently expressing in
> XML because XML was not yet a standard in 1997. 
> The biggest delta is with skos:related.  In my context, I need to be
> able to track not just that there exists a relationship, but what the
> nature of that relationship is.  An easy example out of many:
> Product A is our product.  Products B and C are products of a
> competitor.  Product A is related to Product B as a competing product
> (which allows us to do things like put competitive intelligence
> materials about B on A's intranet page).  Products A and C are related
> because Product A is compatible with Product C.  That is, we can sell
> our Product A into an established Product C environment.  The
> information that I want to give the sales person is our story about that
> compatibility rather than competitive information about Product C.  I
> can easily come up with a couple of dozen other situations where I want
> typed relationships.
> My inclination is that I want to put an additional rdf attribute in the
> skos:related element to indicate the type of relationship.  However, if
> I have been reading this discussions on this list correctly, I shouldn't
> be adding additional formal attributes within skos elements.  (Is this a
> correct understanding?)
> Has this issue been addressed within the SKOS discussions?


*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2007 08:22:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:47 UTC