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

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

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:40:36 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DBB5@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Considering only the technical issue of the super-property of the SKOS Core documentation properties ... 

rdfs:comment does have to go as a super-prop for these props because of its range, but I've been thinking that there still should be a single property as the super-property for all SKOS Core documentation properties.   What if we add a new prop e.g. 'skos:documentation' to SKOS Core to play the role that rdfs:comment currently does?

Cheers,

Al. 


---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
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: 18 February 2005 20:58
> To: Ralph R. Swick
> Cc: Miles, AJ (Alistair); public-esw-thes@w3.org; 
> public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS Core review Re: issue: non-Literal "comment"
> properties Re: new draft of SKOS Core guide
> 
> 
> * Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2005-02-18 15:43-0500]
> > I'd hope that a generic RDF vocab browser would support data-driven
> > views such that it could be user-trained (or Web-trained) 
> to know what
> > to do with, e.g. skos:definition vs. skos:historyNote.
> 
> (Now we have SPARQL, its XML result format, and XQuery/XSLT, we might
> just have the raw ingredients for that...)
>  
> > >> > 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,
> > >> > Alistair?
> > 
> > I have become more than a little concerned with the references from
> > the Guide to the Spec as I've been doing due-diligence on 
> the request
> > to publish the Guide as a Working Draft.  I think that any 
> reasonable
> > reviewer of the Guide will want to follow the references to 
> the Spec.
> > If the Spec is not ready to be published for whatever reason then
> > I no longer think the WG should be requesting to publish the Guide
> > independently.
> 
> I'm convinced now. As much by the positive case as re concerns. By
> having the two go out at the same time, we'll be in a position to get
> slashdotted etc. and not look half-ready.
> 
> (aside re publicity... subject 'tags' in blogs/flickr/etc are getting 
> a lot of attention lately, and the connection w/ SKOS is being made, 
> eg. see http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003702.html from
> David Weinberger, writeup of v nice work from Siderean that 
> emphasises the extra power RDF/SKOS brings to that scene...).
> 
>  
> > >> I was thinking that the SKOS Core Spec [1] is pretty 
> much ready to go, 
> > >> waiting on comments from Tom & Mark & yourself esp. re 
> the 'policies' 
> > >> section I added last week.  Aiming to propose the SKOS 
> Core Spec for 
> > >> first WD at the SWBP-WG telecon next thursday (24th 
> feb), which depends on 
> > >> approval by Tom and Mark by tuesday/wednesday if they 
> are willing to give it.
> > >
> > >If it is ready to go, should we hold off on the Guide and 
> have the two
> > >go out together, cross-referenced? Or can we just put a 
> redirect in? I
> > >think a "first working draft" is an attention-capturing 
> event, people
> > >will print it out, think about it, etc. Do we want them to 
> consider both
> > >docs at same time?
> > 
> > The Guide does need to change in a minor way if the TF and WG
> > concur with dropping rdfs:comment from the superclass hierarchy
> > of the documentation properties.  The TextArt figure in 
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-02-15#secdocumentation
> > needs to be corrected.  
> 
> Good catch, sorry I missed that.
> 
> >			That might not need to hold up publication,
> > but combined with other process questions I think we should wait
> > and publish the two documents simultaneously.  I believe the first
> > Working Draft event will get far better reception in the 
> public if it is
> > complete (both documents) rather than done in two stages.
> 
> I think so too, on reflection and after careful review of Core today.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 13:41:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT