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 18:37:14 +0200
Message-ID: <42F0F2BA.9030800@cs.vu.nl>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org


Hi Alistair,


> You're right, there is a bit of a mix-up between audience and function, but I think skos:editorialNote is best kept, primarily because it aligns with BS8723, other accepted standards, and best practice in the thesaurus world.

I agree.


> The original idea was that the editor records a skos:changeNote for every single (possibly minor) change, i.e. skos:changeNotes are a bit like the comment you add to every commit you make to a CVS repository.  A skos:historyNote is a note intended more for public (indexer/searcher) consumption, recording information about a change leading to modified usage.  The skos:historyNote property was intended to be used as described in BS8723, which seemed different from the use of skos:changeNote to record all modifications, as in the SKOS Core vocabulary itself e.g.

Would be useful to have this link with BS8723 explicit in the guide.

Your statements about changeNote seem to imply that changeNote is a
more fine-grained version of historyNote, or historyNote is some kind
of aggregation of changeNotes? Is there a reason that something like
changeNote is not in BS8723 (or did I miss it)?

Isn't there the risk that one person's changeNote is another person's
historyNote etc., which makes searching harder? Couldn't you separate
the two kinds of changes by adding a different audience (user vs.
maintainer)?

Just asking some stupid questions to get it really clear...


> SKOS Core is already outside OWL DL because we allow flexibility in the range of the documentation properties.  OWL DL requires that all properties be declared as either datatype properties or object properties.  So I think dcmitype:Image is OK for use with SKOS Core.  

Woops, you're right, already outside DL...

> I think we should accept that SKOS Core is firmly outside OWL DL for now, and respond only to significant use cases that require DL functionality as and when they arise.  I think we should attack SKOS/OWL/DL questions like this at the next (3rd) review, with someone from SWBP OEP TF as reviewer and in co-ordination with OEP, attempting to answer questions like:

Very reasonable.

CHeers,
Mark.

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 16:37:29 GMT

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