SKOS comment

A comment on
"S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept "

I have considered modelling complex thesauri containing sub thesauri 
describing different aspects of objects (persons,subjects,..) as
a general concept scheme having sub thesauri as top concepts.
(often the pre-skos version is organized as a tree with top level
children nodes that are the aspects themselves).

ct:complex_thesaurus rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme
ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:subjects
ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:persons
ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ...

then,

ct:subjects rdf:type skos:Concept,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

but I would also like
ct:subjects" rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme

I would put all ct:complex_thesaurus concepts skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus

ct:subject1 rdf:type skos:Concept
ct:subject1 skos:broader ct:subjects
ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:subjects
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus

Then, ct:complex_thesaurus would be a proper conceptscheme with tree
but its subtree ct:subjects would also be a proper conceptscheme.

Why? Because I would dislike having to define two distinct URIs for
the subject that is a topconcept of ct:complex_thesaurus and
the subject that is a Conceptscheme that defines all subjects concepts that are
descendants of the ct:subjects concept. I would then need to define some ad hoc 
property linking both subject uris. 



Thanks,

Lourens van der Meij

(allowing skos:Collection and skos:Concept to not be disjunct could also possibly make
 skos:Collection more useful)

Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 08:29:05 UTC