- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:41:57 +0200
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Hi, About > *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Antoine to list decisions made about concept scheme > [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action13] which overlaps a lot with Guus' action > *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Guus to post an interpretation of the Amsterdam > discussion of isDefinedBy [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action14] We have in the following from http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html > ... proposal is to accept the proposal from alistair as a resolution > for closing issue 36 (Alistair's proposal at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1) > ... with two remarks > > 1. for historical reasons, inscheme is kept as a subprop of isDefinedBy > > 2. we dont touch hasTopConcept > > al: are we explicitly depracating skos:inScheme > > danbri: precedents for deprecation? > > al: in prev WG we useed OWLs classes for these > > danbri: i suggest doing likewise here > > guus: formalities > ... no objections, abstentions > ... resolved by consensus > > we agree 3. that deprecating skos:inScheme (using approporiate owl > vocab) is part of the accepted proposal So I think this is pretty explicit, even if the third part (which I'm not really fond of, but that's another story) has been added in a strange way. Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 16:41:59 UTC