On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> So I've came to the following idea, which I would be happy to discuss here.
> Since we don't know how the RDF landscape will evolve, we certainly don't
> want to specify the range of dcterms:subject beyond the fact that it
> contains skos:Concept. The way to do this is as following :
>
> dcterms:subject rdfs:range _:b
> skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf _:b
>
> The semantics of rdfs:range and rdfs:subClassOf entails that the blank node
> _:b is of type rdfs:Class, but the two above statements keep agnostic on the
> extension or any description of this class, beyond the fact that it is a
> superclass of skos:Concept.
I do not disagree with this, but I wonder what we would gain
from declaring this formally. As I understand, rdfs:Resource is
already (by default) the formal range of dcterms:subject, and
the machines already know that skos:Concept is a sub-class of
rdfs:Resource.
The sub-class of rdfs:Resource and superclass of skos:Concept
that we were looking for in the Usage Board was one that would
somehow exclude the class rdfs:Literal. At least, that is what
we thought we needed at the time (three years ago). I have also
heard the issue of a class for non-literals come up in other
contexts and wonder whether the ongoing lack of such a class is
currently on anyone's issue list.
Tom
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|