- From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:43:26 -0400
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:36 AM > To: Houghton,Andrew > Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: ISSUE-130 draft response > > Hi Andy, > > Your idea of using a specific TopConcept class makes sense at first > sight, and I guess it was actually present in the SKOS vocabulary a > while ago. But there could be problems with that when concept schemes > re-use concepts from each other. In those cases a top concept for one > scheme may well not be a top concept for another scheme. Being a top > concept is really a contextual property, and not a part of the essence > of a concept, I think. Actually I wasn't suggesting a new class for TopConcept, but a mechanism for specifying that a skos:Concept is a top concept. Something like: <skos:Concept rdf:about="concept URI"> <skos:isTopConcept rdf:resource="in-scheme URI" /> </skos:Concept> skos:isTopConcept could be an inverse of skos:hasTopConcept in the skos:ConceptScheme. This way you could specify a top concept where it makes the most sense. Andy.
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 15:44:20 UTC