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: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:00:38 +0100
To: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <PM-EH.20050227230038.82C19.1.1D@>

Hi Tom,

I was just trying to say that having typed properties
(or properties with constrained ranges) facilitates
the development of RDF browsers and editors, and that
it may perhaps be worth spending some more time on
modeling SKOS' documentation properties.

Unfortunately I don't know if it'd be better to have
distinct properties (for literal values vs. document
pointers vs. related resources), or if e.g. several
note *classes* ( la Annotea) would be a cleaner
approach. I'll try to summarize some alternatives
and post them to the list in a separate mail..


Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 100
45145 Essen, Germany

On 27.02.2005 19:08:38, Thomas Baker wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 06:28:15PM +0100, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>> >In the course of untangling these issues, we have ended
>> >up in the DCMI Usage Board with a bias against building
>> >implementation-related restrictions into the very definitions
>> >of the vocabulary.  Limiting values to literals, for example,
>> >can perhaps more appropriately be done in some sort of
>> >application-profile construct rather than "once and for all"
>> >in the canonical representation of the vocabulary.
>> ...would you
>> actually encourage vocab developers to invent hybrid
>> properties (yep, by "hybrid" I meant plain rdf:Properties
>> which don't constrain their range to either literals or
>> non-literals)? I guess that'll be another "it depends"
>> answer ;)
>I'm not familiar with the notion of hybrid properties in
>the RDF context, so I may not be correctly understanding
>your point...
>The RDF schema in which http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
>(for example) is defined essentially says that Creator is
>an RDF property, with a label, comment (definition), and
>description.  In practice, RDF users have since 1997 been
>using dc:creator for arcs that point either to a string or to
>a node (i.e., resource) with its own properties (the latter
>has sometimes been called a "structured value").
>Does this make Creator a "hybrid" property?
>It is true that differences between encoding styles have
>created some difficulties -- see, for example, [1].  Are you
>suggesting that the formal declaration of the terms in RDF
>be more explicit in this regard?
>P.S. I will be traveling and may not be able to follow up on
>this thread until March 9...
>[1] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/rdf-values/
>Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
>Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
>Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
>53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
>Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Sunday, 27 February 2005 22:00:42 UTC

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