W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2004

RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] Moving semantic relation property exten sions to an 'extensions' vocab.

From: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:12:05 +0100
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, "'Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) '" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c4a21e$f68a8bd0$0300000a@DELL>

I won't repeat my earlier comments on this, but just comment on: "If you
know that nobody uses them, then it might make sense to pretend they
never existed."
Some people DO use the subdivision of BT into some or all of those
types. I'm told it is more common in German thesauri than elsewhere. But
most people are not using them. Not an immediate priority, I'd say.
Stella
*****************************************************
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
*****************************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles
McCathieNevile
Sent: 22 September 2004 17:15
To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
Subject: re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] Moving semantic relation property
exten sions to an 'extensions' vocab.



On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair)  wrote:

>
>Any further comments on this proposal?
>
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Aug/0081.html>
>
>...
>
>I would like to propose that the following properties be removed from 
>SKOS Core, and be moved to an 'extensions' vocabulary

+0.1

>(perhaps under the namespace 
><http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions#>?)
>...

-1

The things have been defined. If you knwo that nobody uses them, then it
might make sense to pretend they never existed. Since you likely don't
know that (I discovered a couple of weeks ago that some spanish-speaking
folks I had gone looking for were using broader/narrower stuff already.
I hope to find out how much in a couple of weeks. If people are doing it
in chinese I don't suppose I will find out for ages[*].

So I would suggest leaving them where they are, and using some simple
owl to define a vocabulary of extensions or things you're not sure
about, as opposed to things you are...

(I found
http://cdls.nstl.gov.cn/mt040526/archives/docs/3-%CA%FD%D7%D6CCABE9%B9%E
3DCA%FD%BE%A8040523%A3%A9.pdf
mentions SKOS-core but the great firewall menans that I don't know
what's in it. There is other stuff, including articles and maybe
translations...)

>My reasons are:
>
>(1) These are the least stable parts of SKOS Core, and I don't expect 
>them to stabilise in the short term (i.e. months).  So they're getting 
>in the way of publishing short term.
>(2) They impinge on the whole 'thesauri -> ontologies' question, which 
>again I don't think we're going to have an answer for in the next 
>couple of months.

Fair enough

>(3) They clutter up SKOS Core, and distract from its fundamental 
>features.

I'm not sure if you mean that you expect people to read the RDF
Vocabulary definition stuff that includes SKOS core, and it's big
because there is other stuff in it, or you mean that the explanations of
SKOS-Core include these and that makes them distracting.

I would suggest that it is the documentation written for people whose
visual form is important - the machines don't really care where things
are defined, except that if they move around there are problems.

just my 2 cents

cheers

Chaals
Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 10:12:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT