- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:56:27 +0100
- To: Lourens van der Meij <lourens@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Dear Lourens Thank you for your comments [1,ISSUE-129]: """ A comment on "S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept " I have considered modelling complex thesauri containing sub thesauri describing different aspects of objects (persons,subjects,..) as a general concept scheme having sub thesauri as top concepts. (often the pre-skos version is organized as a tree with top level children nodes that are the aspects themselves). ct:complex_thesaurus rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:subjects ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:persons ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ... then, ct:subjects rdf:type skos:Concept, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ but I would also like ct:subjects" rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme I would put all ct:complex_thesaurus concepts skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus ct:subject1 rdf:type skos:Concept ct:subject1 skos:broader ct:subjects ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:subjects ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus Then, ct:complex_thesaurus would be a proper conceptscheme with tree but its subtree ct:subjects would also be a proper conceptscheme. Why? Because I would dislike having to define two distinct URIs for the subject that is a topconcept of ct:complex_thesaurus and the subject that is a Conceptscheme that defines all subjects concepts that are descendants of the ct:subjects concept. I would then need to define some ad hoc property linking both subject uris. """ Requires discussion. ------------------------------------------------ As you discuss, in the SKOS data model, a concept scheme is viewed as an aggregation of a number of Concepts and we have chosen to make Concept and ConceptScheme disjoint. This does then require the introduction of additional URLs to identify the scheme and the concepts but we believe that maintaining a separation between the two notions aids clarity and promotes interoperability. We propose to *close* this issue, making no change to the document. I hope that you are able to live with this. Cheers, Sean Bechhofer Alistair Miles [ISSUE-129] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/129 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014.html -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:57:45 UTC