- 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