W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2008

RE: revisions and change in skos

From: De Smedt Johan <Johan.DeSmedt@wkb.be>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:16:03 +0200
Message-ID: <3AD9510C40516241AEAEA6DCE2F959B262736E@MAILSRV1.wkb.int>
To: "Rob Tice" <rob.tice@k-int.com>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Rob, 

In my project I am using the following approach
- URI are forever
- the skos:Concept may be constraind in time using an applicability
- the skos Concept has a creation date. modification date and
version(=introduction version) property
- semantic relations are not versioned (skos would be more difficult to
accommodate that)
- Next to semantic relations, change-notes are used on versioned
  These change notes contain references to earlier/newr versions of a

This is sufficient for my curent projects


kr, Johan De Smedt
e-mail: johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rob Tice
Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 08:57
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: revisions and change in skos

Dear list members

The background to my questions is that we are currently considering
developing a 'SKOS resolver' (for want of a better description) for our
terminology management solution to sit alongside the other formats we
currently implement.

This has however thrown up some questions.

As part of this requirement we (ideally)need to:
1 Expose versioning information
2 Allow identification of terminology changes between versions

As these are parts of our existing solution which are already exposed
using other formats.


1. How should we expose versioning information given that uri's for
  concepts are fixed (please don't say timestamps on
  uri's :))

2. How should we identify and manage change between revisions of concept
schemes as this 'seems' to result in imprecision.
   e.g. a concept 'a' is currently in thes 'A' and only has a preferred
label. A new revision of thes 'A' is published and what was concept 'a'
   is now a non preferred concept and thus becomes simply a non
preferred label
   for a new concept 'b'.

   It seems to me that this operation loses some
   of the semantic meaning of the change as all references to the
   concept id of 'concept a' would be lost as it now is only a non

   label of a different concept with a different id (concept 'b').

Any comments would be much appreciated.

Best Regards



Rob Tice, Director
Knowledge Integration Ltd
35 Paradise Street
South Yorkshire
S3 8PZ
email: rob.tice@k-int.com
Tel: +44 (0)870 803 4661

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.4/1695 - Release Date:
Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 07:35:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:10 UTC