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

RE: [PORT] progress update

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:22:38 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB70@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Dan,

Good to hear from you, I heard you've been locked away writing project proposals, I hope that goes well for you.

Two things I could really do with your advice on:

1. What to do about the SKOS Core 'Collections' vocab (see http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2004-11-25.html#seccollections).  I think the design of this bit is OK for the moment (do you?) but I am concerned that the term 'Collection' is overloaded - there are 'RDF Collections' which means RDF lists, and there are 'museum/library collections' which means repositories of stuff, both different from what is intended by a 'skos:Collection'.  

I was thinking to change the names of these properties, do you think this is a good idea?  What could we call them?  

I thought of 'skos:ConceptGroup' instead of 'skos:Collection' and 'skos:groupMember' instead of 'skos:member' etc.  

Stella has suggested 'skos:Array' instead of 'skos:Collection', because the new BS thesaurus standard  calls these things 'arrays of concepts', and it would be nice to be in line with BS as much as poss.  But I'm concerned that 'array' has a specific meaning to compscis which is a bit different.  For 'arrays of concepts' sometimes the ordering is meaningful, and sometimes it isn't, whereas to compscis an 'array' is always an ordered set.  Anyway, what do you think?

2. URIs in guide examples.  Currently all example concept URIs are of the form http://www.example.com/something#concept - because this URI form is a compromise between the folks who say you must use hash URIs, and the folks that want each concept URI to be able to de-reference to a different representation.  Tom B is concerned that this type of URI looks exotic, and we should explain the choice.  I want to avoid discussion of URI form in the SKOS Core guide as much as poss.  Should we just revert to example URIs of the form http://www.example.com/somescheme#something for now?

Also I wrote a new introduction, see http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-01-25.html ... what do you think?



Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 27 January 2005 22:08
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Subject: Re: [PORT] progress update
> Heya,
> I should do something at some point... can you point me in the 
> direction of something that'd be helpful? Best to wait for your new 
> drafts now?
> Hope all's well,
> Dan
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 12:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:05 UTC