Re: SKOS-ISSUE:ConceptSchemesContainment

On 10 Jan 2007, at 08:17, Thomas Baker wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 04:04:42PM +0000, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>> TITLE:Relationships in Concept Schemes
>> DESCRIPTION: SKOS provides a notion of Concept Schemes. RDF's triple
>> syntax makes it impossible to represent associations between concept
>> schemes and particular relationships (e.g. a BT relationship) without
>> resorting to reification. A principled approach to representing this
>> containment would desirable.
>> RAISED BY: Sean Bechhofer, 08/01/07
>> REFERENCE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Nov/
>> 0078.html
>
> Sean,
>
> The wording ("represent associations between concept schemes
> and particular relationships") seems confusingly terse if
> what you want to represent is "the fact that the semantic
> relationships between concepts occur within a particular
> scheme" [1].
>
> For example, I think you mean not just a "particular [type of]
> relationship, such as a BT relationship", but "a particular
> BT relationship between two concepts".  Also, "associations
> between concept schemes" per se (e.g., "this concept scheme is
> associated with that concept scheme") are not the issue here,
> but the sentence could be read this way.
>
> Maybe something like: "RDF's triple syntax makes it impossible
> to associate a particular relationship between two concepts
> with a concept scheme within which that relationship is
> contained"?

Fair comment. I was trying to be terse, but ended up cutting too  
much. I'll resend an edited version.

> A minor point, but I suggest that instead of the date format
> "08/01/07" (August 1 in US), we use "2007-01-08".

Works for me: mm/dd/yy is *always* wrong in my book :-))))

	Sean

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer

Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:59:48 UTC