W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: RelationshipBetweenLabels

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:39:45 +0200
Message-ID: <461B3F41.5040902@few.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Alistair,

I really don't buy these arguments. If a property has an obvious 
'direction' (for example skos:broader) I think it is clearer to have the 
label giving an idea of this direction. When I learned SKOS I was really 
bothered by this ambiguity of skos:broader ("is the first argument the 
most general concept or the least general one?"). Notice of course that 
some properties (the 'symmetric' ones) would be less concerned.

Anyway, my main objection to your proposal was that it has a class 
(Annotation) and a property (annotation) with almost the same label.



>I prefer role nouns, cf.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
>>Sent: 30 March 2007 12:58
>>To: Antoine Isaac
>>Cc: Mark van Assem; Miles, AJ (Alistair); 
>>public-esw-thes@w3.org; SWD WG
>>Subject: Re: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: 
>>Well that might also be nit-picking of mine, but I want to 
>>inform this group that I will never favour a solution that 
>>would use two constructs respectively labelled 'annotation' 
>>and 'Annotation', however brilliant it turns to be ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>skos:annotation rdfs:range skos:Annotation.
>>>>>>>>>>skos:annotatesLiteral rdfs:domain skos:Annotation.
>>>>>>>>>>skos:annotatesLiteral rdfs:range rdfs:Literal.
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 07:39:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:49 UTC