Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal

Hi,

Ok, it seems that my fantastic (yet unintended) use of the composite 
pattern has not seduced the WG.
Also, I have to admit that the definition Alistair has given of 
collections (and the one found in [1] make me doubt about their true 
conceptual essence ;-)

I was actually about to propose an amendment to the "minimal fix" 
proposal so that at least people using collections could use them 
without implementing the algorithm alistair proposed in [2]: introducing 
an explicit link ("nodeParent") from the collection to its parent 
concept. This also corresponded to the definition I found in [1] " node 
label: label inserted into a hierarchical or classified display [etc]" 
which makes strange to have a node label disconnected from its parent.

However I step back, because this solution does not prevent implementing 
an algorithm. As soon as in the original data you've got a direct 
"broader" link between the concept "parent" of the collection and the 
members of the collection (which would be the case according to [2]), 
you've got to implement some algorithm to 'break' this direct broader 
link in the display. Otherwise you would have the member of a collection 
appearing twice in the hierarchy (once as child of the collection, once 
as a sibling of it).
The algorithm might have been simpler if we have an explicit link 
between the collection and its parent (especially when there are nested 
collections), but it is still something special to implement.

Sorry for the intricate mail. I thought this might be useful an argument 
for Alistair if need be.

Antoine

[1] http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/glossary.htm#node
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs/ProposalOne 


> Hi all,
>
> I've written up a possible resolution to ISSUE-33: GroupingConstructs on the SWDWG wiki, see:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs/ProposalOne?action=recall&rev=8>
>
> Note that I am not necessarily endorsing this proposal. This is a proposal which attempts to fix the issue with the minimum amount of change to the current SKOS specifications. There may, however, be good reasons for making more substantial changes, which are hinted at in the discussion. I'll try to write up some alternatives asap.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alistair.
>
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> Science and Technology Facilities Council
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
> 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 Tuesday, 22 May 2007 16:30:15 UTC