- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:54:15 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- CC: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
> >>> "Like" versus "such as" (really not a big deal, but "such as" is sometimes >>> more precise) >> OK, except maybe >> >>> 1133,1134c1134,1136 >>> < re-assert the RDF statements for the <code>ex1:cats</code> concept, e.g., its >>> < <code>skos:prefLabel</code>. Assuming <code>ex1:cats</code> has been >>> --- >>>> re-assert things such as the <code>skos:prefLabel</code> of the >>>> the <code>ex1:cats</code> concept. >>>> Assuming <code>ex1:cats</code> has been >> You would use "things" here, really? Wouldn't "Information" be more >> accurate, if you don't like "statements"? > > The sentence in question is: > > Note that the information source defining the new concept > scheme does not re-assert the RDF statements for the > ex1:cats concept, e.g., its skos:prefLabel. > > I think it was the notion of "re-asserting" an RDF statement > that had me briefly flummoxed. As in: is this about making > NEW statements that happen to say the same thing or actually > about somehow re-asserting THE SAME statements (and how does > one do that - with some sort of import...)? It was really about having the same statement (e.g. (ex:cats, skos:prefLabel, "cats"@en) ) in different places, resulting just from simple assertion. > I agree about "things" versus "information", and I think > "replicate" might clarify things, so perhaps: > > ...does not replicate information about the > <code>ex1:cats</code> concept, such as its preferred label. Perfect! Antoine
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 09:54:52 UTC