W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2006

[SKOS] issues list

From: Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:16:12 +0000
Message-ID: <4589379C.5040704@rl.ac.uk>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

<scribe>  ACTION: Alistair to prepare issues list for January meeting [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-swd-minutes.html#action06]

Just to make sure I've got this straight ... the plan is to create a new issues list for 
all issues relating to SKOS, as a page on the SWD wiki (JonP TODO). This new issues list 
will be managed by the SWD according to the process described at the top of [1] i.e. same 
as WebOnt.

The old "proposals and issues list" for SKOS Core [2] will be no longer used. The page 
will be frozen and maintained for historical reference only.

My action is to provide a brief summary of open items from the old list[2] for discussion 
at the Jan f2f.

Note that I would not expect us to resolve any of these issues at the Jan f2f - I think 
the goal should be to link each of these issues with one or more concrete use cases and/or 
examples, to make sure we all understand the issues, and to move towards framing some 
requirements.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables?action=recall&rev=30
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals

  - Overview of "open" issues from [2] ...

* collections-5 : Fix expression of disjointness between concepts and collections, and how 
to relate to collections.

This is a serious issue - the SKOS Core Guide currently contradicts itself. I recommend 
that this be raised as a single issue for the new list.

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#collections-5

* extension-6 : Write up guidelines for declaring 'extensions' to SKOS Core.

This isn't really an issue, more of a TODO - extensibility will almost certainly be a hard 
requirement for SKOS, so we need to include guidance on implementing extensions in the new 
specs. I don't know if this should be raised as an issue for the new list, or whether we 
should just record somewhere that new specs must address extensibility (by framing a 
requirement?).

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#extension-6

* owlImport-7 : Enabling SKOS Core to be imported into OWL DL ontologies and used within 
OWL editors such as Protege and SWOOP.

This is a serious issue - The SKOS vocabulary cannot currently be imported into any of the 
OWL (DL) editors, because it is currently defined only using RDFS typing, and because even 
with the addition of OWL typing the current property subsumption hierarchy causes it to be 
in OWL Full. I recommend this be raised as an issue for the new list, possibly requiring 
further refinement and splitting into several issues. I also recommend we frame 
requirements wrt using SKOS and OWL together.

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#owlImport-7

* coordination-8 : Add support for subject indexing with coordinations of concepts 
('pre-coordinate indexing').

Again this is more of a TODO - SKOS currently cannot express "coordinated" indexing. I 
don't know whether we need to raise a new issue, or whether we should just look to frame a 
requirement in the context of one or more use cases.

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#coordination-8

* guideUseLangTags-9 : Add language tags to examples in the SKOS Core Guide where 
currently absent.

This is a minor issue. I don't know if we need to raise a new issue - we just need to 
record somewhere that RDF plain literals should always have a language tag (i.e. the 
language tag should never be missing), as a principle of good practice, in examples given 
in future SKOS specs.

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#guideUseLangTags-9

* labelSemantics-10 : What are the semantics of the SKOS Core labelling properties, and 
how should they be expressed?

This is a major issue, and I recommend raising a new issue for the new list. This issue 
also begs another question, which is how constraints on the SKOS model that cannot be 
expressed in OWL or RDFS might be expressed, and how SKOS data may be validated against 
this model - this will very likely need a separate issue.

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#labelSemantics-10

* thesaurusRepresentation-11 : A placeholder item for several thesaurus representation issues.

This is a placeholder for a group of fairly serious issues - several common features of 
existing thesauri cannot currently be expressed using SKOS. This should certainly be 
raised as a new issue, and is very likely to need splitting into separate issues.

See: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#thesaurusRepresentation-11

  - Note on "closed" issues from [2] ...

N.B. four items are marked "closed" - these were addressed by the publication of the 2nd 
Public Working Draft editions of the SKOS Core Guide and Vocabulary Specification, during 
the lifetime of the SWBPD. I don't think these need to be revisited.

[DONE] ACTION: Alistair to prepare issues list for January meeting [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-swd-minutes.html#action06].

Cheers,

Alistair.

-- 
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 13:16:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:48 UTC