Last Call Comment: S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept

Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
Raised by Lourens van der Meij in [1]:

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 ...


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.

Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-129: Last Call Comment (from on 2008-09-30)
  2. Re: SKOS comment (from on 2008-09-30)
  3. ISSUE-129 draft response (from on 2008-10-06)
  4. Re: ISSUE-129 draft response (from on 2008-10-07)
  5. Real List of No Changes! (from on 2008-10-14)
  6. Re: swd minutes 2008-10-14 (from on 2008-10-15)
  7. Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-129] (from on 2008-10-17)
  8. Re: SKOS comment (s) from PFWG [ISSUE-129] (from on 2008-10-20)
  9. Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-129] (from on 2008-10-31)

Related notes:

2008-11-10: ACTION: Accept

2008-11-10: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-11-10: RESOLUTION: 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.

2008-11-10: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept