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: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0500
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050218205828.GG7418@homer.w3.org>

* Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2005-02-18 15:43-0500]
> 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.

(Now we have SPARQL, its XML result format, and XQuery/XSLT, we might
just have the raw ingredients for that...)
 
> >> > 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'm convinced now. As much by the positive case as re concerns. By
having the two go out at the same time, we'll be in a position to get
slashdotted etc. and not look half-ready.

(aside re publicity... subject 'tags' in blogs/flickr/etc are getting 
a lot of attention lately, and the connection w/ SKOS is being made, 
eg. see http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003702.html from
David Weinberger, writeup of v nice work from Siderean that 
emphasises the extra power RDF/SKOS brings to that scene...).

 
> >> 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.  

Good catch, sorry I missed that.

>			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.

I think so too, on reflection and after careful review of Core today.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 20:58:29 GMT

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