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

FW: [PORT] comments on SKOS

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:28:55 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D9851EC@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Forwarding review from Jeremy Carroll:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 15 November 2005 16:29
> To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [PORT] comments on SKOS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reviewed documents
> 
> [[
> 
> PORT TF
> 
>      Documents:
> 
>      SKOS Core Guide
>      http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-10-06/
> 
>      SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
>      http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-10-06/
> 
>      Discussion:
> 
>      Message Miles;
>      
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0195.html
> 
>      SKOS change proposals:
>      http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#coordination-8
> ]]
> 
> 
> SKOS Core Guide
> 
> 1) suggest only having XHTML and CSS valid buttons to bottom of
> document, for greater consistency with other W3C docs. (although in
> editors draft useful to have them at top)
> 
> 2) a number of things printed badly, e.g. many of the pictures did not
> fit on the page, also the extract from UKAT did not wrap
> 
> In "Introduction", para starting "SKOS Core is an application ..."
> suggest reference to RDF Primer would be appropriate for intended
> audience, rather than RDF Concepts, RDF Semantics, RDF Syntax
> 
> 3) Also in Introduction, suggest other prerequisites should be
> discussed, not just SW knowledge. e.g. some background in 
> taxonomies or
> whatever
> 
> 4) subsection entitled "Examples", suggest that ex:aResource 
> etc. should
> be more meaningful names
> 
> 5) Reference for URI is RFC 3986 (or maybe IRI 3987)
> 
> 6) Suggest new section between "Labelling Properties" and 
> "Multilingual
> Labelling" introducing mono-lingual labelling, noting that the
> assumption that the reader knows that the labels are in English is in
> general false on the Web
> 
> 7) Suggest that all literals with natural language text other than in
> the first section on "Labelling Properties" should have a language tag
> (e.g. @en) [This is a big change in terms of number of changes]
> 
> 8) question on dcterms:RFC1766, that RFC was updated a long 
> time ago to
> RFC 3066, and that in turn is in the process of being updated ... does
> dcterms:RFC1766 update itself or is it specifically linked to 
> that version
> 
> 9) The sentence "The property skos:related is a symmetric property."
> implies that the example abaove has a redundant triple. This perhaps
> should be clarified, e.g. adding to the above sentence ", and 
> so one of
> the triples can be omitted."
> 
> 10) Suggest not using the word "recommended" since this is not a
> recommendation.
> 
> 11) Semantics of skos:hasTopConcept does have semantic import.
> e.g. the following seems to be an inconsistent SKOS document:
> 
> _:a skos:hasTopConcept eg:top .
> eg:top skos:narrower eg:notTop .
> 
> or maybe it implies that
> 
> eg:notTop skos:narrower eg:top .
> 
> 12) Need to clarify whether eg:narrower is reflexive or irreflexive
> 
> 13) Most readers will be making a unique names assumption, but RDF in
> general does not.
> The labelling may allow the ability to force unique naming by some
> semantic constraint, e.g. skos:prefLabel as an
> InverseFunctionalProperty, (although that's outside OWL DL)
> 
> This relates to the above example, in that if skos:narrower is
> reflexive, and skos:prefLabel is not an InverseFunctionalProperty or
> similarly constrained then
> 
> _:a skos:hasTopConcept eg:top .
> eg:top skos:narrower eg:notTop .
> eg:top skos:prefLabel "Top" .
> eg:notTop skos:prefLabel "Not Top" .
> 
> entails
> 
> eg:top owl:sameAs eg:notTop .
> eg:notTop skos:prefLabel "Top" .
> eg:top skos:prefLabel "Not Top" .
> 
> If there is an IFP like constraint, or if skos:narrower is 
> irreflexive,
> then this is inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 14) Collectable Properties stuff
> a question ....
> 
> If we divide the concept of human up into two concepts adults and
> children, and also up into two concepts of males and females, 
> then adult
> is narrower than human
> 
> <skos:Collection>
>     <skos:member rdf:resource="&eg;male"/>
>     <skos:member rdf:resource="&eg;female"/>
> </skos:Collection>
> 
> <skos:Collection>
>     <skos:member rdf:resource="&eg;adult"/>
>     <skos:member rdf:resource="&eg;child"/>
> </skos:Collection>
> 
> and
> 
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="&eg;male" />
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="&eg;female" />
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="&eg;adult" />
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="&eg;child" />
> 
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="&eg;human" />
> 
> What are the skos:broader and skos:narrower relationships 
> between these
> 5 concepts and 2 collections?
> 
> 
> 15) The para at start of subsection "Concetps in Multiple Schemas" is
> incorrect. Of course RDF statements change the meaning of the things
> that they are about; and not only the informal descriptions. 
> The example
> in point 13 explores one case, the collectable properties rule is
> another example.
> 
> 
> 16) It would be nice if skos:prefLabel had a uniqueness property, e.g.
> maybe have skos:SingleLabelScheme rdfs:subClassOf skos:ConceptScheme,
> for which there is a unique naming assumption on the labels with any
> given language tag.
> 
> 
> 
> On
> 
>      SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
>      http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-10-06/
> 
> 17)Change Policy Statement
> 
> Has this policy been followed so far?
> e.g. publish every two months?
> 
> The policy should be reviewed to ensure that it is an honest statement
> of aspiration as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Comment on proposed section Example:Weighted Semantic Relationships
> 
> I don't like this at all.
> 
> RDF reification vocabulary is normative.
> It's normative semantics is very weak.
> 
> The final comment suggesting the reification of a statement 
> entails the 
> triple is incorrect, and poorly phrased.
> 
> 
> Comment on SOlution for olwImport-7
> 
> I very much like additional notes 3 and 4
> 
> Note 3: factoring out the english lexical resources:
>     - yes english is the default language in W3C
>     - but also yes the english labels should be accessible using the 
> same mechanisms as any other supported language. This will 
> allow tools 
> to not have to special case for english.
> 
> Note 4: factoring out is good; factoring out the housekeeping 
> is likely 
> to be particularly beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 16:29:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:54 GMT