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

issue: non-Literal "comment" properties Re: new draft of SKOS Core guide

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:54:53 -0500
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbd-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050211175452.GK6070@homer.w3.org>

+cc: SWBP WG

Just noticed something that looks to me like a bug; sorry
I didn't catch it earlier.

defines 3 idioms for documentation, and 8 properties for 
public or private notes, definitions, examples etc.
They are all defined as sub-property of rdfs:comment.

There are three recommended usage patterns for the SKOS Core
documentation properties:

    * Documentation as an RDF Literal
    * Documentation as a Related Resource Description
    * Documentation as a Document Reference

Unfortunately, only the first clearly fits with the definition 
of http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment (the 2nd might, I'd 
need to check); I'm sure the 3rd doesn't. The RDFS spec defines
the range of rdfs:comment to be rdfs:Literal. And documents aren't 

My suggestion would be to drop the 'subPropertyOf' assertion, and
perhaps record an issue on this, since there is some appeal to 
having the 'documentation as an RDF Literal' idiom show up as a 
use of rdfs:comment, and there is some appeal to using the other 
idioms. And we already have 8 properties; not sure we'd really 
want 16 if we duplicated them. 

As an aside, I'd be interested to see 'best practice' for using
hypertext in SKOS and in RDFS/OWL definitions and comments. Perhaps
using one of the cut-down (mobile oriented) XHTML profiles...



<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment">
  <rdfs:comment>A description of the subject resource.</rdfs:comment>
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 17:54:54 UTC

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