W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: SKOS Reference review

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:39:11 +0200
Message-ID: <48A7E3AF.3090406@few.vu.nl>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
CC: Alistair Miles <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Guus, Alistair, Sean,

Maybe it can be useful for me to intercept the following points of Guus' 
review before a next version of the Reference is released:

>
>
> 4.6.3 named RDF graphs
>
> Explain (or refer to Primer) the issue of schema containment and 
> potential use of SPARQL + named graphs

There is nothing in the Primer about that! It was actually refering to 
an Annex E of the Reference, which has disappeared since...

>
>
> SEC. 7
>
> "7" => "seven"
>
> Example 25: I suggest to refrain from using the construct "rdf:value" 
> as it is so rarely used. If you really need it, you have to add an 
> explanatory note + RDF ref.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue discusses how to use that, and in terms that fit nicely the documentation-as-structured-object pattern, I found.
The editor's draft of the Primer to be released this week also mentions it.
Anyway, the use of the documentation-as-structured-object will be rarely used, I guess. So I'd be not that uncomfortable with using for that an RDF feature that is rare ;-)


>
> 8.6.4.
>
> Explain briefly rationale why skos:related is not transitive.

There is (will be) an example in the Primer :
> Noteó(non-)transitivity of skos:related: The reader should be aware 
> that in the SKOS semantics, skos:related is not defined as a 
> transitive property. A transitive skos:related could have unwanted 
> consequences, as in the following example:
> ex:renaissance skos:related ex:humanism.
> ex:humanism skos:related ex:philosophicalAnthropology.
> ex:philosophicalAnthropology skos:related ex:philosophyOfMind.
> ex:philosophyOfMind skos:related ex:cognitiveScience.
> Should skos:related be transitive, ex:renaissance would be then 
> directly related to ex:cognitiveScence. While every individual 
> statement makes sense, the infered one might not fit the original 
> intention of the designer of the KOS... 

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2008 08:40:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 August 2008 08:40:13 GMT