[foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

Dan Brickley danbri at danbri.org
Thu Apr 23 15:13:00 CEST 2009

On 23/4/09 14:37, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 2009/4/23 Dan Brickley<danbri at danbri.org>:
>> You mean "domain" I think.
> Indeed.
>> They're a little different. DC's notion of subject is a relationship between
>> a document(-like-object) and a subject code (think SKOS). FOAF's topic
>> construct is a relationship between a document and the thing itself, ie. the
>> thing the subject code itself represents. A specific restriction on
>> foaf:topic is where the thing is the *primary* topic of the document, hence
>> foaf:primaryTopic. So foaf:topic is useful even just as a primitive for
>> defining foaf:primaryTopic, which allows us to use (some) documents as an
>> indirect identification strategy for the things they describe.
> Ok, so would I be right with this:
> <docAboutSomeDogs>  foaf:topic<#Basil>
> <docAboutSomeDogs>  dct:subject<dogs/B/Basil>
> <docAboutSomeDogs>  foaf:topic<#Sasha>
> <docAboutSomeDogs>  dct:subject<dogs/S/Sasha>
> ...
> where
> #Basil is his WebID
> and
> <dogs/B/Basil>  a skos:Concept

With you so far! Yup ...

> (and will 303 to a doc about Basil)

Am agnostic on this point of SKOS best practice, but sure. Maybe RDFa 
with the SKOS in it.

> but what would x here be?
> <dogs/B/Basil>  x<#Basil>

x is what I am calling the "it" property. Originally I suggested this 
for SKOS but I tihnk it will be more pragmatic to just put it into FOAF, 
and have FOAF more heavily endorse SKOS as its preferred way of talking 
about topics as distinct from the things those topics represent.


> (couldn't see anything obvious with a quick re-skim of SKOS, which
> surprised me a bit)
> Cheers,
> Danny.

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list