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 15:50:03 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB73@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Chaals,

> Please don't change the URIs. Give them clearer labels and 
> descriptions if  
> you think the human-readable stuff currently doesn't help much.
> (I have yet to meet a change of URI that struck me as 
> anything but a bad  
> idea :-(

Yeah, I agree with this.  I'm just thinking that folks will at least initially see this stuff in the raw so to speak, so will see 'skos:Collection' all over the place, and may not like it.  So I was just thinking that if we do want to make a change, now is the time.

Incidentally, what the change would mean: 

	- add skos:WhateverGetsChosen etc.
	- deprecate skos:Collection etc.
	- add OWL equivalence and DC is-replaced-by statements linking the old & new vocab.

But I'd be happy to leave skos:Collection etc. as is, and maybe add 'Concept array' as an alt-label.  Could also add a comment about equivalence to BS8723 notion of 'array'.

> I think coining new URIs for something is a bad move, since 
> it focusses  
> attention on the wrong aspects of RDF (the syntax, rather 
> than the model).  
> Plus it means people need to keep collecting information 
> about new names  
> for old rope.

Yup.  But these sorts of issues can make a difference.  And given that the biggest anticipated user community for SKOS Core (library science) uses 'collection' to mean something totally different ... well, should I be worrying about this?



Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 15:50:35 UTC

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