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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:11:40 -0500
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbd-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050218151139.GS11010@homer.w3.org>

Re-ping. I don't see a response to this in the archives.

I believe the Guide and the Core spec are in tension. And 
that this could be resolved (at this stage in the design anyway)
by dropping the 'superproperty: rdfs:comment' claim from the Core.
If we are happy with that change happening, the Guide is, I believe,
unaffected. The pre-WD core doc could be changed in place, I guess.

Thoughts? I'm a little concerned w/ referencing the non-WD core spec
from a WD. How much more work do you reckon there is on the main doc,


* Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2005-02-11 12:54-0500]
> +cc: SWBP WG
> Just noticed something that looks to me like a bug; sorry
> I didn't catch it earlier.
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/#secdocumentation
> 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 
> literals.
> 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...
> cheers,
> Dan
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment">
>   <rdfs:isDefinedBy
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"/>
>   <rdfs:label>comment</rdfs:label>
>   <rdfs:comment>A description of the subject resource.</rdfs:comment>
>   <rdfs:domain
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
>   <rdfs:range
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
> </rdf:Property>
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 15:11:40 UTC

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