> I still think it would be fair to users of SKOS to make this clear, as
> dc:subject will probably be a major deployment point for SKOS
> concepts.
I agree, I hope we can work on drafting a section to go in the SKOS Core Guide (maybe not 1st public draft, but next iteration) on interoperability with DC.
But won't most people do e.g.
<http://somewhere/somedoc> dc:subject <http://somewhere/someconcept> .
... ? I.e. in this (most common?) use case the user is referring directly to a conceptual resource via the URI of that resource, and so never has to refer a vocabulary encoding scheme. Can you outline the usage scenarios involving dc:subject that require a reference to a vocabulary encoding scheme?
Thanks alot,
Al.
P.s. [Aside] ...
> ex:AAT a skos:ConceptScheme.
> ex:AATTerm a rdfs:Class;
> rdfs:subClassOf skos:Concept.
>
Aaaah you used the 'T' word ('term')!!! I would do something like:
---
@prefix aat: <http://www.example.org/aat#> .
aat:Concept a rdfs:Class;
rdfs:subClassOf skos:Concept.
<http://www.example.org/aat> a skos:ConceptScheme.
---
... sorry, but I can't help myself - I've been trying to avoid the word 'term' at all costs in SKOS design and documentation, because it's meaning is now so overloaded. I prefer to talk about identifying and describing 'conceptual resources'. Seriously, being absolutely clear about the nature of the things (resources) that we are referring to and describing is the one thing we all need to get better at imho.
OK, nervous twitch over ... :)
|