W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [PORT] Getting this TF going

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:07:00 -0400
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040610140700.GL1296@homer.w3.org>

* Miles, AJ (Alistair)  <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-06-09 20:13+0100]
> Hi all,
> Sorry I've been out of touch for a short while - been head down buried in
> some project deliverables.  

Thanks for chasing this along. I'm happy to note that you now have
access to the TF homepage, http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
(already google top hit for 'thesaurus task force' btw!). 

I have an as yet unfulfilled action to propose a short term plan. I
think we have a similar perspective. Comments intersperced...

> Am still considering exactly what sort of note would be the best place to
> start for this TF.  I was thinking a publication of an RDF schema for
> standard thesauri, with an accompanying vocab spec?  

Yes. Using bits of OWL as appropriate, ie where the capture our intended
semantics for the vocabulary.

> This could be a republication of the SKOS-Core schema [1] with perhaps a few
> minor changes (some interesting issues have come up in recent work with
> thesaurus developers).  The spec I was imagining as similar to the SKOS-Core
> guide [2], but a slightly more formal description of the schema.

I think SKOS is a good start. 

More formally, I hereby propose that we take the SKOS work (esp
SKOS-Core guide + RDF vocab) as a starting point for this TF to publish
as a W3C technical report (Note/WD as advised by Ralph and GUus).

I expect we will have some work to do on better charaterising the
scope/purpose of this effort, in particular whether electronic
dictionaries are in scope (not just Wordnet... but other similar
efforts), or whether they could be 'in scope' in the sense that
extensions to SKOS could accomodate their needs.

There may also be more work to do w/ I18N content (eg. use of Ruby 

> Just want to get a feel from you - if this is the right thing to aim for.

Sounds good to me. 

> Interesting thing for me right now is how to set the SKOS schemas up so they
> can continue to be developed and evolve in the most painless way possible,
> as interest in them is growing and people are starting to deploy.  Managing
> change in these schemas is a major issue ... the status schema [3] used with
> FOAF is a kind of start here, but doesn't go anywhere near far enough I
> reckon.
> Surely recommendations and support for change management in RDF schemas is
> major fodder for this WG?  Anybody thought about doing something in this
> area?
> Also FYI ... published in final draft form are the SKOS-Core Migration
> Guidelines:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/migrate/
> Yours,
> Alistair.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core.rdf
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns
> ---
> 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
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 10:07:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC