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

Re: SKOS Core second review

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:05:18 +0200
Message-ID: <42F0CF1E.8050008@cs.vu.nl>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

Stella, Alistair, Andrew. I agree with what you are saying. I could 
see this line of answers to my questions coming, that's why I said 
they were only rhetorical :-)

Sorry for unclearly mixing humour with science, it's a bit boring at 
the VU now...

Mark.

Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>>From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:06 AM
>>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: SKOS Core second review
>>
>>- I think we already discussed it wouldn't be good practice to produce/maintain a thesaurus in SKOS itself, so what would be the point of having this maintenance info in the RDF version as a housekeeping aid?
> 
> 
> A thesaurus management system could be built using SKOS as the underlying model,
> so I don't necessarily agree that it wouldn't be good practice to produce/maintain
> a thesaurus in SKOS.  However, taking your assumption to be valid, then I would
> say one the reason for keeping these housekeeping aids in the RDF version would
> be for communication with licensees and translators.  SKOS could be used as a
> communication format with these persons and the notes may be useful depending
> upon their needs.
> 
> Andy.
> 

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 14:05:24 GMT

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