It's a good idea to use SKOS for representing codelists.
Then the example in #65 should be something like this:
uncefact:UNECERec28Code a skos:ConceptScheme.
rec28:Bulk_carrier a skos:Concept;
skos:inScheme uncefact:UNECERec28Code;
skos:prefLabel "Bulk carrier";
skos:definition "Vessel designed to carry bulk cargo.";
skos:notation "152".
rec28:Dry_bulk_carrier a skos:Concept;
skos:inScheme uncefact:UNECERec28Code;
skos:prefLabel "Dry bulk carrier";
skos:definition "Vessel designed to carry dry bulk (expellers)."
skos:notation "1521";
skos:broader rec28:Bulk_carrier.
The current approach is to make a separate class for each codelist.
That's compatible with using SKOS (some projects use such a dual approach), although a bit unwieldy.
Then you'd add statements like this:
uncefact:UNECERec28Code a skos:ConceptScheme, rdfs:Class;
rdfs:subClassOf skos:Concept.
rec28:Bulk_carrier a skos:Concept, uncefact:UNECERec28Code.
rec28:Dry_bulk_carrier a skos:Concept, uncefact:UNECERec28Code.
It's a good idea to use SKOS for representing codelists.
Then the example in #65 should be something like this:
The current approach is to make a separate class for each codelist. That's compatible with using SKOS (some projects use such a dual approach), although a bit unwieldy.
Then you'd add statements like this: