W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

SKOS core vs guide subproperty problem (resend)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:14:08 -0500
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050218151408.GT11010@homer.w3.org>
One day I'll learn to use email. I reply'd to
my initial misdirected message; apologies.

attached mail follows:

This is the Postfix program at host homer.w3.org.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

			The Postfix program

<public-swbd-wg@w3.org>: host lisa.w3.org[] said: 550 unknown user
    (in reply to RCPT TO command)

attached mail follows:

Re-ping. I don't see a response to this in the archives.

I believe the Guide and the Core spec are in tension. And 
that this could be resolved (at this stage in the design anyway)
by dropping the 'superproperty: rdfs:comment' claim from the Core.
If we are happy with that change happening, the Guide is, I believe,
unaffected. The pre-WD core doc could be changed in place, I guess.

Thoughts? I'm a little concerned w/ referencing the non-WD core spec
from a WD. How much more work do you reckon there is on the main doc,


* Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2005-02-11 12:54-0500]
> +cc: SWBP WG
> Just noticed something that looks to me like a bug; sorry
> I didn't catch it earlier.
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/#secdocumentation
> defines 3 idioms for documentation, and 8 properties for 
> public or private notes, definitions, examples etc.
> They are all defined as sub-property of rdfs:comment.
> [[
> There are three recommended usage patterns for the SKOS Core
> documentation properties:
>     * Documentation as an RDF Literal
>     * Documentation as a Related Resource Description
>     * Documentation as a Document Reference
> ]]
> Unfortunately, only the first clearly fits with the definition 
> of http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment (the 2nd might, I'd 
> need to check); I'm sure the 3rd doesn't. The RDFS spec defines
> the range of rdfs:comment to be rdfs:Literal. And documents aren't 
> literals.
> My suggestion would be to drop the 'subPropertyOf' assertion, and
> perhaps record an issue on this, since there is some appeal to 
> having the 'documentation as an RDF Literal' idiom show up as a 
> use of rdfs:comment, and there is some appeal to using the other 
> idioms. And we already have 8 properties; not sure we'd really 
> want 16 if we duplicated them. 
> As an aside, I'd be interested to see 'best practice' for using
> hypertext in SKOS and in RDFS/OWL definitions and comments. Perhaps
> using one of the cut-down (mobile oriented) XHTML profiles...
> cheers,
> Dan
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment">
>   <rdfs:isDefinedBy
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"/>
>   <rdfs:label>comment</rdfs:label>
>   <rdfs:comment>A description of the subject resource.</rdfs:comment>
>   <rdfs:domain
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
>   <rdfs:range
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
> </rdf:Property>

Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 15:14:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:42 UTC