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

RE: SKOS Core second review

From: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:55:23 +0100
To: "'Mark van Assem'" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000e01c597a4$8090ef60$0300a8c0@DELL>

Not sure I agree with the comment, "The editorialNote seems to mix up
audience and function, and could be replaced by usage of either
skos:historyNote or skos:changeNote with the appropriate audience
attached to it."

It is called Editorial Note because typically it deals with some matter
that needs editorial housekeeping attention. So in one sense it is
intended for a particular audience, but only because of its intrinsic
*function*, namely to assist good maintenance of the vocabulary. (That's
the way I use it, anyway) I would not want to see it mixed up with
History Notes or Change Notes. History Notes are intended to help users
choose the right formulation of search terms, so they need to see them;
Editorial Notes need to be kept out of sight in normal usage, to avoid
confusion.

Cheers
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 Mark van Assem
Sent: 02 August 2005 13:47
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: Re: SKOS Core second review




Hi,

> If you have any objections to these changes, or wish to raise any is
sues, please do so at this time by email to this list.

Sorry for the delay - here are my comments.

* subjectIndicatorUse-1: No comments.

* notes-2

Review proposal notes-2 [1] says "There is a requirement for stating 
the intended audience of a note independently from the function of the
note".

With that in mind I am wondering about the following properties:

- skos:historyNote "A note about the past state/use/meaning of a
concept."
- skos:changeNote "A note about a modification to a concept."
- skos:editorialNote "A note for an editor, translator or maintainer 
of the vocabulary."

The editorialNote seems to mix up audience and function, and could be 
replaced by usage of either skos:historyNote or skos:changeNote with 
the appropriate audience attached to it.

I also am still wondering about the overlap between skos:historyNote 
and skos:changeNote (is the difference large enough to warrant 
separate properties?), but maybe that is best left until after the
review.

* symbolicLabelsRange-3:

Looking into dcmitype:Image [2] I noticed that it is not only a class 
but an instance as well (of dcterms:DCMIType). This seems tricky for 
us, as this means that as soon as software (interpreting skos:Concepts 
with skos:symbol attached to it) also imports the whole dcmitype 
vocabulary, we're outside OWL DL. Seems that we gain a little and risk 
a lot in this way by moving to dcmitype:Image. But this question must 
have popped up with others, so maybe most don't see this as a problem? 
Can anyone comment on this?

* seeAlsoTranslations-4: No comments.

Regards,
Mark.

-------------

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#notes-2
[2] http://dublincore.org/2003/12/08/dctype#Image

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:25:49 GMT

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