Hi,
Just to clarify one point (I'll have to think about the others :) ...
> >
> > (Of course, providing the URI of a conceptual resource is highly
> > desirable, as it removes the difficulty of having to merge
> blank nodes
> > on the basis of a combination of properties, which DCQ-RDF currently
> > necessitates; see also the section 'Concept Identity' in [3] (an
> > earlier draft of the SKOS Core guide), dropped from the latest draft
> > because it depends on the outcome of this discussion, which at the
> > time had not yet begun :)
>
> Hmmm. DCQ/RDF certainly allows the use of URIs instead of just blank
> nodes. No blank node merging is necessary. Where did you get that idea
> from? Actually, the fact that it uses URIs is a fundamental reason for
> this discussion.
I meant when you're not using URIs in DCQ/RDF (of course I know you can). I wanted to make sure that the statements in the related resource description examples in the DCQ/RDF document aligned with the usual set of statements you make about a skos:Concept, with the original intention that such an alignment could be used as a partial basis for merging resource descriptions of 'encoding scheme values' with descriptions of skos:Concepts. But if everyone is using URIs now in DQC/RDF then that consideration is secondary (I had figured it would be important for legacy data).
Cheers,
Al.
|