- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:19:06 +0100
- To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Hi Bernard, +1 for including Vocabulary. It would fill in the gap of not having included an equivalent to skos:ConceptScheme in the MiniSKOS proposal. I'm however a bit skeptical about having just one class for ontologies (sets of classes and properties a la schema.org) and other SKOS-level vocabularies (classifications, thesauri) in one big bag. I'll be the first one to agree with you that the two types of vocabularies are not exclusive. But the functions are quite different. In fact trying a litmus test: if the "Vocabulary" class was to include SKOS Concept schemes, would the Linked Open vocabularies start gathering SKOS concept schemes as well? > An extra would be to have a "definedBy" property to link instances of the oncoming Topic class to an instance of Vocabulary. > Is this skos:inScheme in the SKOS world, or really rdfs:isDefinedBy? The nuance (creating vs. including/re-using) can be in fact really important. (and I personally feel that both aspects are worth representing). Cheers, -- Antoine
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 10:19:36 UTC