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

RE: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd Review: symbolicLabelsRange-3

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:08:55 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0ACDA0@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

Ralph points out that we could improve clarity here, but I still think it's worth going ahead with the change to the RDF description of SKOS Core (for reasons given below), and then discussing clarifying prose for the Guide.

So this done and logged at:

http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/000142.html

Cheers,

Al.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 04 October 2005 15:41
> To: Ralph R. Swick; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd Review: symbolicLabelsRange-3
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> > --
> > [11]symbolicLabelsRange-3
> >   refactor symbolic labelling properties and change range
> >   to DCMI type Image.
> > 
> > The semantics of altSymbol and prefSymbol feel 
> under-specified to me.
> > I cannot, for example, decide whether the use case would be 
> adequately
> > (or perhaps better) handled through additional to UNICODE such that
> > the desired symbol(s) can be conveyed as text.  It is not clear
> > whether symbols used as "preferred symbolic labels" should have
> > glyph-like semantics.  The BLISS example and reference would
> > support such a presumption.  I suggest there exists here an
> > opportunity to add clarity.
> 
> What do you mean by 'glyph-like semantics'?
> 
> The original idea was just to allow folks to 'label' their 
> concepts with images (that have GET-able representations as 
> jpeg/gif/png/svg/blah), where the image depicts a symbolic 
> representation of the concept, for the purpose of creating 
> graphical representations in web documents etc.  
> 
> Do you have any suggestions for how we can add clarity?
> 
> > 
> > I appreciate the utility of moving the grounding from FOAF to DCMI
> > but the comment that raised this issue noted that there were other
> > FOAF dependencies.  I wonder why the remaining one 
> (subjectIndicator)
> > is not being addressed?
> 
> To be honest, I'd forgotten that the range of 
> skos:subjectIndicator is foaf:Document.  I'd be happy to 
> discuss this for the next review.
> 
> > 
> > Any objection based on the semantics of DCMI:Image are apparently
> > made moot by the stated intention [12] to modify the FOAF
> > specification.  Clearly, if FOAF:Image becomes a subclass of
> > DCMI:Image the net result is the same for applications.
> 
> I don't think this is true.  Just because FOAF has made the 
> foaf:Image class a sub-class of dcmitype:Image, what 
> guarantees do I have as an implementer that this won't change?  
> 
> I can understand implementers currently preferring a 
> dependency on DCMI, where all changes however minor have to 
> go through the Usage Board and public comment periods, to a 
> dependency on FOAF, where the reality is that Danbri can and 
> does tweak on short notice.  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> > 
> >    [11] 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#symbolicLabelsRange-3
>    [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Jun/0057.html
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 13:09:28 GMT

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