I said:
> So.....
>
> (a) is this analysis correct please? i.e. is the relationship
> between a "value" and a "vocabulary encoding scheme" in the
> DCAM different from that between a "concept" and a "concept
> scheme" in SKOS?
> (b) if so, does that mean there is no simple correspondence
> between a DC "vocabulary encoding scheme" and an SKOS
> "concept scheme"?
> (c) if so, is that a problem for DC implementers wishing to
> reference SKOS concepts as "values"?
> (d) if it is a problem, how do we "fix" it?
FWIW, I think my own answers to my questions would be
(a) yes, I think so (but I would say that!!)
(b) yes, I think so: an SKOS concept scheme is not - or, perhaps more
accurately, is not necessarily - a class
(c) no, not really: if a "value" is an SKOS concept, then an application
can make use of the information represented using the SKOS data model
and SKOS RDF vocabulary, to discover more about that concept's
relationships with other resources (with other concepts, and with
concept schemes etc)
Pete
|