Re: [PORT] notes for PORT TF

Al et :

Agree with publishing the A / B / C & D guides and outline contents ..

Would be happy to contribute and lessen your workload on C & D .

carl

<quote who="Miles, AJ (Alistair)">
>
> Hi all,
>
> [For those on public-esw-thes a 'note' here is a working group note, i.e.
> a
> document published by SWBPD-WG]
>
> Guus said at the F2F that it would be a good idea to publish notes that
> don't even have the word 'SKOS' in the title ... i.e. notes that are
> specifically written for the controlled vocabularies user community.
>
> I agree with this.  The draft at [1] entitled 'Quick Guide to Publishing a
> Controlled Vocabulary on the Semantic Web' is a first go at doing this.
>
> However, [1] is deliberately very short, and doesn't go near many of the
> issues that need to be covered.
>
> What about a note called something like 'Guide to Publishing Controlled
> Vocabularies on the Semantic Web', with a table of contents looking
> something like:
>
> Guide to Publishing Controlled Vocabularies on the Semantic Web
> 	Step 1: Allocate URIs
> 	Step 2: Create an RDF Description
> 		Simple Term Lists
> 		Terms with Definitions (Glossaries)
> 		Vocabularies with Non-Preferred Terms
> 		Structured Vocabularies
> 			Hierarchies
> 			Associative Relationships
> 		Thesauri
> 		Thesauri with Node Labels
> 		Thesauri with Guide Terms
> 		Faceted Thesauri
> 		Classification Schemes
> 	Step 3: Publish the RDF Description
>
> ... with examples (real as available) that use features from SKOS Core as
> necessary?
>
> The other thing is that, even with a document like the above, I still
> think
> a 'SKOS Core Guide' is necessary, because we need some sort of
> descriptive,
> normative reference that says 'this is how you should use SKOS Core'.
>
> If we did have something like the above, we could restrict the scope of
> the
> 'SKOS Core Guide' to much less than what is currently at [2] ... i.e. the
> point of [2] would then be just to specify the proper usage of SKOS Core,
> with examples as necessary.  These examples would have to be made up for
> the
> purpose, because nobody has yet deployed according to the current
> specification of SKOS Core.
>
> So then the list of documents proposed for the PORT TF would become:
>
> A. SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
> 	A human-readable description of the SKOS Core RDF vocabulary,
> including status information (essentially a 'namespace document' for SKOS
> Core)
>
> B. SKOS Core Guide
> 	Descriptive normative reference for how to use SKOS Core.
>
> C. Quick Guide to Publishing Thesauri on the Semantic Web
> 	Very short how-to document with a concrete example.
>
> D. Guide to Publishing Controlled Vocabularies on the Semantic Web
> 	Extended document, exemplifying how to express various types of
> controlled vocabulary in RDF, with concrete examples as available.
>
> Does this seem like a good idea?  I know I'm making more work for myself
> and
> the PORT TF, but I want the focus scope and aim of each document to be
> very
> clear.  For a start, this makes them much easier to write.  (I realised
> that
> with [2] I'd been trying to do two things at the same time.)
>
> Comments on this?
>
> Al.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/primer/2004-11-17.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/
>
>
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi

Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:08:26 UTC