Re: SKOS use cases format

Sorry I forgot two things

>
>>
>> 1.2. (*) Please provide below some extracts from the vocabulary(ies). 
>> Use the layout or presentation format that you would normally provide 
>> for the users of the vocabulary(ies). Please ensure that the extracts 
>> you provide illustrate all of the features of the vocabulary(ies).
>>
>> 1.3. Describe the structure of the vocabulary(ies). What are the main 
>> building blocks? What types of relationship are used? If you can, 
>> provide examples by referring to the extracts given above.
>
>
> Seems to me that we could switch 1.2 and 1.3
> To answer Daniel's concerns about requirements, we might try to be 
> more precise here by mentioning the following points (adapted from a 
> study that a Dutch cultural heritage insitute organized recently for 
> vocabularies, which btw generally contains elements that validate 
> Alistair's proposal)
> - main building blocks: type of descriptive concepts (terms, 
> classification items with codes, etc.), presence of non-descriptive 
> items (qualifiers use to precise the meaning of primitive concepts)
> - structure (what type of relationship): hierarchical (with special 
> interpretation)? associative? management of homonymy/synonymy? Others?
> - organization: are the vocabulary elements gathered according to 
> certain characteristics (facets)?

- language: in which language does the vocabulary come in? Is there a 
primary language? How complete is are translations?

>>   Section 3. Application
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> 3.5. Briefly desribe any non-trivial algorithms involved in the 
>> processing of user actions, e.g. query expansion algorithms.
>
>
> I would prefer "strategies" (simpler,perhaps catching more cases) over 
> "algorithms". We could perhaps also limit the scope of this question 
> to vocabulary-related functionalities

I wonder how "non-tirivial" the strategies mentioned here could be. Even 
the use or not of simple hierarchical reasoning could be a nice 
information to know about.

Antoine