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

RE: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd review: notes-2

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:36:46 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0ACD91@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Mark, all,

OK, how about this:

http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/secdocumentation.html?rev=1.6

Added prose examples for various note types.

Also added suggested values for dc:audience property after XML example (in 'documentation as a related resource description' section).

?

Cheers,

Al.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
> Sent: 03 October 2005 09:19
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd review: notes-2
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Alistair,
> 
> I think more text/examples are required to explain the difference 
> between the editorial, change and historynote (at least it took me a 
> lot more text thru the mailing list to get it...).
> 
> Two examples I scraped from Andy [1] and one from Alistair [2]:
> 
> <skos:changeNote xml:lang='en'>
>  > Checked in 2005-08-03T13:30:00-04:00 by userX
>  > Check in comment: completed changes to all concepts 
> relating to pears.
>  > </skos:changeNote>
>  >
>  > But the history note might read:
>  >
>  > <skos:historyNote xml:lang='en'>
>  > Pears were previously listed as a narrower term under vegetables
>  > instead of fruits.
>  > </skos:historyNote>
> 
>  > ex:conceptA a skos:Concept;
>  >  skos:prefLabel 'Animals';
>  >  skos:altLabel 'Fauna';
>  >  skos:editorialNote [
>  >    skos:onLbl 'Fauna';
>  >    rdf:value 'Check with Mr.X. whether to keep "Fauna".';
>  >  ];
>  > .
> 
> This makes it more clear what the difference in function/audience 
> usually is.
> 
> We could also state that changeNote is likely to be some sort of 
> CVS/TMS comment.
> 
> I also think it would be good to have examples for the notes + 
> "Documentation as a Related Resource Description" pattern 
> (i.e. a note 
> + the dcterms:audience). Remember this is one of the reasons not to 
> have ranges for the note properties at all and this may not be 
> apparent to most readers. We'd also need an example of when 
> one of the 
> notes would be for another audience entirely - thereby justifying the 
>   recommendation of this pattern.
> 
> BTW still wondering what the values for dcterms:audience should be - 
> does anyone have a clue?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0014
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0017
> 
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> > Any comments on the following redraft of the 'Documentation 
> Properties' section of the SKOS Core Guide:
> > 
> > 
> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts
/secdocumentation.html?rev=1.4
> > 
> > ...?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Al.
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> >>[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> >>(Alistair)
> >>Sent: 29 September 2005 16:10
> >>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Mark van Assem
> >>(E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail)
> >>Subject: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd review: notes-2
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Re: change proposal notes-2 [1]
> >>
> >>N.B. this proposal requires the following changes to the SKOS 
> >>Core RDF/OWL description:
> >>
> >>remove statements
> >>{
> >>skos:definition rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
> >>skos:example rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
> >>skos:scopeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
> >>skos:historyNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
> >>skos:changeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:privateNote.
> >>skos:editorialNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:privateNote.
> >>}
> >>
> >>add statements
> >>{
> >>skos:publicNote a owl:DeprecatedProperty;
> >>  dct:isReplacedBy skos:note.
> >>
> >>skos:privateNote a owl:DeprecatedProperty;
> >>  dct:isReplacedBy skos:note.
> >>
> >>skos:note a rdf:Property;
> >>  rdfs:label 'note'@en;
> >>  skos:definition 'A general note, for any purpose.'@en;
> >>  rdfs:comment 'This property may be used directly, or as a 
> >>super-property for more specific note types.'@en;
> >>  skos:example 
> >><http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/examples/note.rdf.xml>;
> >>  rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core>;
> >>  vs:term_status 'unstable';
> >>  dct:issued '2005-09-29';
> >>  dct:replaces skos:privateNote;
> >>  dct:replaces skos:publicNote;
> >>.
> >>
> >>skos:definition rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
> >>skos:example rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
> >>skos:scopeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
> >>skos:historyNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
> >>skos:changeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
> >>skos:editorialNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
> >>}
> >>
> >>N.B. this proposal also requires redrafting of the section 
> >>'Documentation Properties' from the SKOS Core Guide [2].
> >>
> >>Mark [3] hasn't raised any objections to this change, 
> >>although he has noted that the question of audience and 
> >>function overlapping possibly arises for the properties 
> >>skos:historyNote, skos:changeNote and skos:editorialNote.  
> >>Discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of the current review.
> >>
> >>Ralph [4] hasn't raised any objections to this change.  Some 
> >>responses to his comments below:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Rationale is clear.  Do you intend to add examples to the 
> >>>specification,
> >>>similar to that in [6]?  I expect this will be a FAQ.  (You 
> >>
> >>did write
> >>
> >>>in a followup to that thread that you would add those 
> >>
> >>examples, though
> >>
> >>>the change proposal doesn't make that clear.)  Perhaps that 
> >>
> >>is what is
> >>
> >>>meant by the sub-proposal to add dcterms:audience example.  
> >>
> >>I suspect
> >>
> >>>that it would be wise to circulate that example to the mailing list
> >>>for comment.
> >>
> >>I intended to draft a section of prose for the SKOS Core 
> >>Guide asap and circulate for comment.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I observe that there is useful clarifying material in the thread
> >>>about the semantics of editorialNote [7].  I found Stella's
> >>>citation in [8] informative.  (The [BS8723] reference [9] in the
> >>>SKOS Core Guide does not give a non-practitioner enough information
> >>>to locate this document without the aid of, e.g. Google.  I doubt,
> >>>for example, that many readers would know to what 
> organization "BSI"
> >>>refers.  Please expand that reference some more.)
> >>
> >>I'll try to incorporate Stella's clarifying material into the 
> >>new prose for the guide.  Also I'll expand the BSI reference.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I worry a bit about the vocabulary management side effects 
> of making
> >>>such a change to the property hierarchy, but I observe that 
> >>>implementors
> >>>were given notice that this area could change as both 
> publicNote and
> >>>privateNote have status [10] 'unstable' in the 10 May 
> specification.
> >>>Of necessity, that status should be understood to propagate to
> >>>subProperties so I think implementers have been given appropriate
> >>>caution.
> >>
> >>I'm not sure what to say about this.  I think the notion of 
> >>assigning 'stability' to a class or prop is a reasonable 
> >>solution for the short term, but issues such as you raise 
> >>have not been worked out.  Interesting to discuss further, 
> >>but beyond the scope of the current review (something for VM :).
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>Al.
> >>
> >>
> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#notes-2
> >>[2] 
> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#se
> > 
> > cdocumentation
> > 
> >>[3] 
> >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/
0000.html
>>[4] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Sep/0007.html
>>[6] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Jul/0000.html
>>[7] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0000.html
>>[8] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0007.html
>>[9] 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#refBS8723
>>[10] 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20050510/#secChange
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>>>[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
>>>(Alistair)
>>>Sent: 29 September 2005 14:50
>>>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Mark van Assem
>>>(E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail)
>>>Subject: [PORT] Status of SKOS Core 2nd review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I'm going to start wrapping up the second review, taking it 
>>>proposal by proposal so the emails don't get too long.
>>>
>>>Thanks again to both reviewers for all their hard work.
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 13:36:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:54 GMT