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

Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:59:57 +0200
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: Alistair Miles <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, danbri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050504135957.GA2492@Octavius>

Alistair, Ralph,

Some comments on
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-05-03.

I see "semantic web" is written in lower case; is that the
SWBPD WG house style?

The focus of this review is, again, the policy-related sections
-- Status of this Document, Introduction, and Policy Statements
(especially Change).

Basically, it looks fine except for a few points:

-- The statuses of Public Working Draft (and Editor's Working
   Draft) are mentioned not linked to a W3C document describing
   what these various types of specification are.  This is
   particularly confusing in light of the statement that the
   SWBPD WG "intends the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
   to become a W3C Working Group Note" (e.g., one wonders
   how a Working Group Note relates to a Public Working Draft).

-- Another subtle but confusing point is that this document is
   called Editor's Draft, and one could wonder if that is
   the same as an Editor's Working Draft...

-- The Introduction mentions "a formal representation of the
   SKOS Core Vocabulary... in RDF/OWL".  However, the
   relationship of this formal representation to the other
   W3C specification forms (Editor's Working Draft and Public
   Working Draft) is not specified.  My assumption (based in
   part on conversations with Alistair) is that the formal
   representation would be maintained in sync with the latest
   Public Working Draft.  But if this is the case, I do not
   see this point stated anywhere; in fact, this one mention
   would seem to be the only reference to the formal schema in
   the whole specification.  I think this could be fixed by
   adding a sentence or two here or there -- e.g., by adding
   a Point 9 under Changes, to the effect that "All approved
   changes will be implemented at the same time in the formal
   representation of the SKOS Core Vocabulary in RDF/OWL".

-- The statement "New classes or properties may be added to the
   SKOS Core Vocabulary at any time" seems wrong.  Rather,
   "new classes and properties may be added in accordance with
   the process outlined above" -- or words to that effect...?

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 Wednesday, 4 May 2005 13:58:03 GMT

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