Re: ISSUE-130 draft response

Hi Andy,

I'm a little confused...

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 10:52:46AM -0400, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> > From: [mailto:public-swd-wg-
> >] On Behalf Of Alistair Miles
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:31 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: ISSUE-130 draft response
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Here's a draft response to Kjetil on [ISSUE-130], let me know what you
> > think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
> > wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
> > Kjetil.
> > [...]
> > so it was great to see that skos:topConceptOf is in! Please keep it
> > there, it
> > is simply much easier for us to use it in development with the present
> > architecture.

In you're earlier email [1] you support introduction of
skos:topConceptOf. Thanks for that email by the way, it was really
useful to have your input.

> The problem with skos:hasTopConcept or skos:topConceptOf is that it does not scale.  If your vocabulary has tens of top concepts it works well, but if your vocabulary has hundreds or thousands, then listing all of them in skos:ConceptScheme is cumbersome.  It would be better for vocabularies with a large number of top concepts to indicate in skos:Concept that they are a top concept.  Thus when you retrieve a skos:Concept you also have an indication that it’s a top concept rather than having to also retrieve the skos:ConceptScheme to see whether the skos:Concept is a top concept.

Are you now saying you *don't* support skos:topConceptOf? 

In [1] I thought you approved of skos:topConceptOf because it provided
options for serialising the data in different ways, which is
convenient where a scheme may have a large number of top concepts. Do
you still think so?




Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 15:50:07 UTC