Title:
State: RAISED OPEN PENDING POSTPONED SUBSUMED CLOSED
Product: All RDFa Recipes SKOS VM
Raised By: Everyone Abhishek Rungta Alistair Miles Antoine Isaac Ben Adida Bernard Horan Clay Redding Dan Brickley Daniel Maycock Daniel Rubin David Peterson Diego Berrueta Ed Summers Elisa Kendall Fabien Gandon Francesco de Leo Guus Schreiber Jan Henke Jeremy Carroll Jon Phipps Justin Thorp Justin Thorp Manu Sporny Margherita Sini Michael Hausenblas Mirghani Mohamed Quentin Reul Rachel Yager Ralph Swick Sean Bechhofer Siegfried Handschuh Simone Onofri Thomas Baker Vit Novacek
Description: Raised by Kjetil Kjernsmo in [1]: """ We have defined a sub:isMainConceptOf a owl:ObjectProperty ; rdfs:range skos:ConceptScheme ; rdfs:domain skos:Concept ; owl:inverseOf skos:hasTopConcept . so it was great to see that skos:topConceptOf is in! Please keep it there, it is simply much easier for us to use it in development with the present architecture. I haven't followed the debate since this first was debated, but I would like to bring this up again: I do not like the naming of skos:hasTopConcept and skos:topConceptOf. As long as there are associative relationships in the system, it seems meaningless to make the hierarchical relationships more prominent than the associative by connecting this property to the hierarchy. So, that's why I called my inverse of skos:hasTopConcept isMainConceptOf. I think something like that would be better. I haven't thought too carefully about it, but what if: <S> rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme ; skos:hasTopConcept <B> . <B> rdf:type skos:Concept . <A> rdf:type skos:Concept ; skos:related <B> . would this be consistent? I think that's fairly inevitable in our system, and it would certainly break things if we couldn't do this. What if <B> skos:broader <C> . ? """ Requires discussion. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0015.html
Add notes: