I don't necessarily think the RWO/focus/Concept pattern needs to be interpreted metaphysically. You could think of it as a bridge pattern to map controlled headings to identifier-based data. That's how VIAF uses it to aggregate authority files, for example:
http://bit.ly/1NAFzku
SKOS is a good solution for managing controlled headings because of constraints on the use of owl:sameAs and the limit on skos:prefLabel to one-per-language.
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#div-mapping1
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Dan Matei
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 5:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: dcterms:type and SKOS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Voskuil <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:55:22 +0000
>
> >
> > To express the relation between a metamodelling concept
> > (":NapoleonConcept") and the RWO/FWO (":NapoleonBonaparte"),
> > foaf:focus fits the bill quite nicely. (((---On a side note: I think
> > that there should be an equivalent of this property within the
> > SKOS-namespace.---)))
>
>
> I have difficulties to understand the practical usefulness of the distinction
> "NapoleonConcept" vs. RWO/FWO "NapoleonBonaparte" :-(
>
> How "NapoleonConcept" fits in the definitions:
>
> S: (n) concept, conception, construct (an abstract or general idea inferred or
> derived from specific instances)
> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=concept&sub=Search+WordN
> et&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
>
> or
>
> A SKOS concept can be viewed as an idea or notion; a unit of thought. However,
> what constitutes a unit of thought is subjective, and this definition is meant to
> be suggestive, rather than restrictive.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#concepts
>
> ?
>
> Of course my idea of "Monica Bellucci" differs (somehow) of the real Monica
> Bellucci :-) However...
>
> Yes, I can see the usefulness of the distinction between different catalographic
> identities (as subjects), such as:
>
> Mark Twain vs. Samuel Langhorne Clemens
>
> Charles Lutwidge Dodgson vs. Lewis Carroll
>
> Enea Silvio Piccolomini vs. Pius II
>
> or even:
>
> Bill Clinton (as himself)
> Bill Clinton (as governor of Arkansas)
> Bill Clinton (as president of USA)
>
> But to consider them concepts ? Useful ?
>
> Dan Matei
|