- From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:50:05 +0200
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hi SKOS,
I came across several examples where concept scheme are referenced as
the code list of some property.
Usually this is done by two statements:
ex:property rdfs:range skos:Concept ;
ex:codeList < [some concept scheme] > .
E.g. Data Cubes and geonames use this pattern, but one uses qb:codeList
to point to the scheme, the other gn:featureClass.
Regarding this, I have to questions:
(1) does someone remember a discussion why concept schemes should not be
expressed as subclasses of skos:Concept?
If subclassing would have been used, any concept scheme could be
referenced in a single rdfs:type statement of the concept and a single
rdfs:range statement of the referrer.
(2) if there are sufficient reasons to insist in the current patterns,
shouldn't SKOS be extended by a standard property to be used by
referrers when they point to a concept scheme along with a rdfs:range
statement?
And I add
(3) why do we not have mapping properties to link concept schemes from
different providers?
This cannot be inferred from a given concept mapping, as mapping of some
concepts does not imply mappings of their entire schemes.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Bandholtz
Principal Consultant
innoQ Deutschland GmbH
Krischerstr. 100,
D-40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany
http://www.innoq.com
thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com
+49 178 4049387
http://innoq.com/de/themen/linked-data (German)
https://github.com/innoq/iqvoc/wiki/Linked-Data (English)
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 08:50:29 UTC