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

Re: SKOS Core review Re: issue: non-Literal "comment" properties Re: new draft of SKOS Core guide

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:43:58 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050218152958.02e9cce0@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org

At 01:33 PM 2/18/2005 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> I'm happy to drop rdfs:comment as a super-prop for all 'documentation properties' 
>> - I think this has to be done for the reasons you describe.
>
>OK. Let's do that.

I support this approach.  The semantics of the 8 SKOS Core documentation
properties are too nice to dilute by restricting the range to rdfs:Literal.

> Though note that this'll cost us in the case of those scenarios
>which do shadow rdfs:comment usage, ie. search/browse tools based on
>label/comment won't see SKOS labels.

Right.  I think that's too bad, but it's the right trade-off.  An individual resource
might have multiple SKOS documentation properties.  Should a generic
RDF browser choose one, append them all, halt and catch fire?  I don't
like any of those choices.

> Maybe that's OK since generic RDF
>vocab browsers will be structured in terms of classes and properties
>anyway, rather than networks of concept-descriptions. So some rejigging
>is going to have to happen regardless of property name for the text
>labels.

I'd hope that a generic RDF vocab browser would support data-driven
views such that it could be user-trained (or Web-trained) to know what
to do with, e.g. skos:definition vs. skos:historyNote.

>> > 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,
>> > Alistair?

I have become more than a little concerned with the references from
the Guide to the Spec as I've been doing due-diligence on the request
to publish the Guide as a Working Draft.  I think that any reasonable
reviewer of the Guide will want to follow the references to the Spec.
If the Spec is not ready to be published for whatever reason then
I no longer think the WG should be requesting to publish the Guide
independently.

>> I was thinking that the SKOS Core Spec [1] is pretty much ready to go, 
>> waiting on comments from Tom & Mark & yourself esp. re the 'policies' 
>> section I added last week.  Aiming to propose the SKOS Core Spec for 
>> first WD at the SWBP-WG telecon next thursday (24th feb), which depends on 
>> approval by Tom and Mark by tuesday/wednesday if they are willing to give it.
>
>If it is ready to go, should we hold off on the Guide and have the two
>go out together, cross-referenced? Or can we just put a redirect in? I
>think a "first working draft" is an attention-capturing event, people
>will print it out, think about it, etc. Do we want them to consider both
>docs at same time?

The Guide does need to change in a minor way if the TF and WG
concur with dropping rdfs:comment from the superclass hierarchy
of the documentation properties.  The TextArt figure in 
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-02-15#secdocumentation
needs to be corrected.  That might not need to hold up publication,
but combined with other process questions I think we should wait
and publish the two documents simultaneously.  I believe the first
Working Draft event will get far better reception in the public if it is
complete (both documents) rather than done in two stages.
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 20:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:15 GMT