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

Re: scope notes and definitions

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:54:08 +0100
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050127155408.GI1788@Octavius>

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:35:41AM -0000, Alistair Miles wrote:
> I.e. A concept *should* have no more than one definition per language
> (because the more definitions you have for a concept, the less well
> specified it becomes).  And a concept *should not* have a scope note in
> addition to a definition, because the information in the scope note should
> be included in the definition if the definition is to be 'complete'.
>   
> These two 'constraints' should be declared I think, because they express
> elements of good practice.  A validation tool could throw 'warnings' if they
> are violated.  However, there is of course nothing to stop somebody
> publishing a concept in RDF using SKOS Core with 6 definitions and 4 scope
> notes. 
> 
> So what I am saying is, we use 'constraints' to encourage good practice, but
> the inherent flexibility of RDF means that SKOS Core can equally be used in
> situations where people want to diverge from what we consider to be 'good
> practice'. 
> 
> Does this sound OK?

Clarifications like these are helpful and should perhaps be
made in a sentence or two in the specification document itself.

Tom

-- 
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 Thursday, 27 January 2005 15:52:07 GMT

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