W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2005

RE: [PORT] moving SKOS Core fwd

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:59:02 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DC5F@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Thomas Baker" <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Tom,

The current setup is that the resource: 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core 

... is an up to date description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary in RDF/OWL, and the resource: 

[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/

... is an up to date description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary in HTML.  The SKOS Core Vocabulary is itself is subject to change under the circumstances described in the change policy statement, therefore these resources may change accordingly.  Niether [1] nor [2] have been assigned any formal status within a W3C process.

The resource:

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/whatever-we-get-for-the-skos-core-spec-WD/

... is a description of a snapshot of the SKOS Core Vocabulary, in HTML, approved as a W3C public working draft by the SWBPD-WG.

Does this all sound OK?

There is no reason why [3] couldn't be linked to the appropriate historical version of the SKOS Core RDF/OWL description, which will probably be:

[4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/history/2005-03-31

One way of avoiding this whole confusing business would be to say that, between public working drafts, the RDF/OWL description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary [1] will be frozen.  However, I'm not sure this would be a good idea ... thoughts?

Cheers,

Al.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 15:59:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT