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

RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] public/private notes

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:59:24 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89DEE9DC7@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Andy,

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind :)

Al.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Houghton,Andrew [mailto:houghtoa@oclc.org]
> Sent: 13 June 2005 19:03
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair); public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] public/private notes
> 
> 
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, 
> > AJ (Alistair)
> > Sent: 13 June, 2005 12:32
> > To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> > Subject: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] public/private notes
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > > b) Re the discussion of public versus private notes, I 
> > agree you can't 
> > > lay this down from above. For example, definitions could be made 
> > > public for one audience, private for another.
> > 
> > I propose that the skos:publicNote and skos:privateNote 
> > properties be deprecated, and replaced by a single property 
> > e.g. 'skos:note'.
> > 
> > The audience of a note may then be specified by using the 
> > dcterms:audience property.
> > 
> > Any objections to me opening this as a proposal on 
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals
> 
> Currently in the 10 May 2005 draft these properties have a hierarchy:
> 
> skos:publicNote
>   skos:definition
>   skos:scopeNote
>   skos:example
>   skos:historyNote
> 
> skos:privateNote
>   skos:editorialNote
>   skos:changeNote
> 
> So it sounds like your proposal is to change the hierarchy to:
> 
> skos:note
>   skos:definition
>   skos:scopeNote
>   skos:example
>   skos:historyNote
>   skos:editorialNote
>   skos:changeNote
> 
> I'm also assuming that skos:note will allow you to make 
> additional note types, just like publicNote and privateNote 
> did.  In addition, if you want to specify dcterms:audience, 
> then you will have to use the second (documentation as a 
> related resource description) method.
> 
> If I understand the proposal correctly, then I feel this 
> would be a positive change.  In looking at SKOS in relation 
> to the DDC, we have struggled with SKOS note types, since 
> there are well over 100 different note types in DDC with 
> varying degrees of "public-ness" or "private-ness" for 
> licensees and translators.
> 
> 
> Andy.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 13:59:28 GMT

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