Hmmm, re-reading some of the SKOS docs I get the feeling that skos:subject is indeed appropriate only for documents:
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/#secindexing | These properties [including skos:subject] can be used for subject | indexing of information resources on the web. Here 'subject indexing' | means the same as 'indexing' as defined by Willpower Glossary. The Willpower Glossary says: | indexing: intellectual analysis of the subject matter of a document | to identify the concepts represented in it, and allocation of the | corresponding preferred terms to allow the information to be retrieved So, skos:subject is intended for use on information resources, that is, documents. DBpedia resources in general are not documents. I'm logging this as a bug in the tracker. I think that a new property in the DBpedia namespace is perhaps the simplest solution, e.g. dbpedia:category. Thoughts anyone? Richard On 24 Jan 2008, at 11:06, KANZAKI Masahide wrote: > 2008/1/24, Richard Cyganiak: >> We couldn't find any indication in the SKOS documentation that >> skos:subject should be used *only* for creative works. I also asked >> on >> the SKOS list if this was okay, and the consensus seemed to be that >> it's a bit strange, but not illegal. > > Well, there is no domain restriction for skos:subject, so it's 'legal' > to relate anything and skos:Concept with skos:subject, but sometimes > inappropriate. Let's think the following statement: > > dbpedia:Tim_Berners-Lee skos:subject dbpedia:Category:Living_people . > > I don't think it's good idea to say that "TimBL's subject (or topic) > is Living_people" although we can say that "TimBL is categorized as > Living_people". A person can be a subject of some works, and a person > may be interested in some topics, but I can't imagine that a person > has a subject or a topic ... > >> Maybe there is a better choice? Do you have a suggestion for another, >> more appropriate property to use in place of skos:subject? > > I've tried similar approach that used Wikipedia as PSI of a subject, > and used Wikipedia category as basis to categorize these subjects. > Since I couldn't find appropriate terms for this purpose, I defined > own vocabulary to describe them. > <http://purl.org/net/ns/wordmap#category> can be used to relate > DBPedia resource and its category, though the vocabulary is not well > known (so far ;-). > > Or, since DBPedia already defined many terms for own project, it'd be > no problem to define one more property for category relationship. > > best regards, > -- > @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name > "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"]. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
