On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > Now that the SKOS specification has been cast in stone by W3C, it seems that
> > instances of skos:Concept should be natural candidates for being values of
> > dcterms:subject, but it is too restrictive to have in the specification
> > something like the following
> >
> > dcterms:subject rdfs:range skos:Concept
>
> If there are no reasonable values for dcterms:subject which aren't
> also in the class SKOS called "Concept", then this is OK.
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject
> "The topic of the resource."
> "Typically, the subject will be represented using keywords, key
> phrases, or classification codes. Recommended best practice is to use
> a controlled vocabulary."
> " This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined
> in the DCMI Abstract Model
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December
> 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention
> with a formal range declaration."
>
> This definition seems to allow in, just about, the use of a URI for a
> thing directly. Eg. if Paris the city is a topic of some document, we
> could perhaps write dcterms:subject and then a URI for the city.
I believe that was the gist of the argument when we discussed
this in the Usage Board. If I recall, the hypothetical example
was a URI identifying some (real!) "sheep"... :-)
> If the DC usage board doesn't feel this habit quite fits with the
> intent, then I suggest it's definition pretty much is the same as
> SKOS's notion of Concept, and there would be no harm to assert a range
> of skos:Concept.
>
> Note that asserting such a range doesn't force you to actually use
> SKOS alongside DC, or for the concept mentioned to have a
> derferenceable URI, or for there to be SKOS at the end of the link,
> etc.
It wouldn't force anyone to use SKOS, but it would force an
inference engine to infer that the object of the statement is a
SKOS concept. So in a way, would that not constitute "forcing"
a certain interpretation?
> Are there any candidate examples of things that reasonably aren't skos
> Concepts, yet are good values for dcterms:subject?
The example you give of a URI for a city is a good one. If the
coiner of the URI has not declared it to be a SKOS concept,
is it "polite" to impose this interpretation just because
it is being used as a value for dcterms:subject?
Tom
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|