- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:28:54 +0200
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, Here's a new draft response to Michael on [ISSUE-182]. Please let me know what you think, especialy wrt. formality level! Antoine Dear Michael, Thank you for your comments [1]: """" 2. Index terms An important part of many classification systems is an index, in the case of the DDC its "Relative Index". Index terms associated with a given class generally reflect several of the topics falling within the scope of that class. There is no easy way of modeling this relationship in SKOS: Class/Concept: 616 Diseases Index terms: Clinical medicine Diseases--humans--medicine Illness--medicine Internal medicine Physical illness--medicine Sickness--medicine Currently, a possible workaround is to construct the complete Relative Index as a separate skos:ConceptScheme and relate the concepts in these two independent schemes by using mapping relations: skosclass:hasIndexTerm rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:closeMatch . skosclass:isIndexTermOf rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:closeMatch ; owl:inverseOf skosclass:hasIndexTerm . <class/616> a skos:Concept ; skosclass:hasIndexTerm <index/Clinical%20medicine> ; skos:inScheme <classification> . <index/Clinical%20medicine> a skos:Concept ; skosclass:isIndexTermOf <class/616> ; skos:inScheme <index> . This seems to be a satisfactory best-practice solution in this case, but it has broader implications as index terms are just one instance of Class-Topic Relations """" ------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of fact SKOS does not offer by default a solution that would fit exactly your problem. Our concern with your comment is in fact that its scope might be limited, considering the whole context of KOS practice. We have indeed not identified that kind of situation in our Use Cases and Requirements document [2], even for the classification case we had at hand, which was UDC [3]. We consequently propose to *close* ISSUE-182 [ISSUE-182], making no change to the existing SKOS documents. We hope that you are able to live with this. We actually would welcome your opinion on this decision, whether you think this is really a big shortcoming for the KOS community or not. Please note that it is still possible to coin a practice for representing your "index terms", using properties from SKOS and other existing vocabularies. I indeed faced a similar case once. The motivation for representing these indexing links was not clear for us in our case, but using a (specialization) of mapping properties, as you proposed, would have seemed very statisfactory! Another option would be to use dc:subject (or a specialization of it), based on the observation that indexing of concepts or classes by other concepts or classes can be likened to indexing of douments (or general resources) by concepts or classes. I hope this helps. Note that if you agreed with one of the practice proposed in the second part of this mail, or come with a better solution, we would encourage you to publish a brief best practice note and inform the SKOS community via the mailing list. We'd also be more than happy to set up a "SKOS community best practices" wiki page to collect links to such statements! Note that in your specific case, all the elements that you have brought in [1] could be a useful addition to the practices presented in [4]... Best regards, Antoine [ISSUE-182] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/182 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0061.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SKOS/UCR.html [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/EucUDC [4] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/ClassificationPubGuide?rev=12
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2008 09:29:23 UTC