- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:22:02 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi, On 10 August 2010 09:12, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > +cc: Leigh > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu> wrote: >> Dan- >> >> can i suggest using a different word than focus, as this is term of art in >> controlled vocabularies. It is used when referring to modified/specialized >> "terms". > > Thanks for the feedback. It seems that words are like Internet domain > names; all the good ones are taken! I wasn't aware of that usage. I can see how it might be confusing to that specific community. I agree with Dan's comments around "references" and similar naming: that situation is already murky, so best not to make it worse. I also don't really think that referencing/referring captures the intent as well as "focus". > ... > Saying that the concept *references* the real world entity seems a > tiny bit strong anyway; I guess I'd say 'reference' with regard to the > concept's documentation, or with regard to a use of the concept in > some document. But at some level this is all metaphor anyhow; nothing > is really 'focussing' either. I had hoped 'focus' was a word that came > with relatively little baggage in this community and amongst Web > technologists, since 'topic' and 'subject' are already heavily > over-used. Likewise, until now I had seen focus as relatively unused and unburdened. Is there scope to leave foaf:focus in FOAF and explore a more general term for inclusion as part of SKOS. One might end up superceding the other if successful. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.dodds@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 13:22:35 UTC