Re: [SKOS] SKOS Primer's status - proposal to move it forward

Hi Margherita,

OK, I don't know if this is very regular process, but you can have a 
look at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
> pant pant... I am more or less half way. Here my comments for now:
>  
> Comments to the SKOS Primer v.11/02/2008 (SKOSPrimer-080211.html)
> - Section 1.1 About this Primer: in this sections and other I still see the
> use of N3 notion. I think this will be changed to Turtle syntax, right?
>   

True! Reference is now changed.

> - Section: 2.2.4 Use of Labels Outside of SKOS: here we say "These labels are
> compatible because foaf:name is a sub-property of rdfs:label." Why there is
> the need to say this sentence? why not then considering also "foaf:nick" used
> in the example?
>   

Is it clearer if I remove the foaf:nick statement, which is indeed 
useless from the example?

> - 2.3 Semantic Relationships: the name of the semantic relationships is not
> changes yet in this version. Will then be changed after only if we approve
> the corresponding issue?
>   

Yes.

> - 2.3.2 Associative Relationships: I know we already discussed it ... but
> seems strange that "skos:related is not defined as a generally transitive
> property"... are we sure about it? if so, can we provide an example as done
> for the other case (transitivity of BT wheels - vehicles).
>   
There could be an issue here. But this also concerns the Reference doc, 
in which this non-transitivity is specified. Are you OK if for the 
moment I add
[[
@@TODO: write an example@@
]]

Antoine
>  
> will continue and join the conference in 15 minutes.
>  
> bye
>
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
> 	Sent: Mon 11/02/2008 12:58 
> 	To: SWD WG; Sini, Margherita (KCEW); Quentin Reul 
> 	Cc: 
> 	Subject: Re: [SKOS] SKOS Primer's status - proposal to move it
> forward
> 	
> 	
>
> 	Dear all,
> 	
> 	As we discussed last week, none of the 4 issues mentioned in the mail
> 	below should be considered as blocking for the Primer, cf [1]:
> 	
> 	>    Antoine: over past week, we tried to address comments from
> people
> 	> [...see http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-minutes.html for
> discussion...]
> 	>
> 	>    guus: with this input, don't let this block publication of the
> 	>    working draft
> 	
> 	Further, the document has been checked by Ed wrt. conformance of
> examples
> 	wrt Turtle language.
> 	
> 	I would therefore propose to move forward the Primer, and to publish
> the
> 	February 11 Editor's draft of the Primer as a working draft [2].
> 	This of course requires explicit endorsement of the two reviewers who
> 	kindly accepted to comment on the previous version.
> 	Margherita and Quentin, will you be at the next teleconference? Do
> you
> 	support this publication?
> 	
> 	Best, regards,
> 	
> 	Antoine
> 	
> 	[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-minutes.html
> 	[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
> 	
> 	
> 	>
> 	> Dear all,
> 	>
> 	> As a preparation for tomorrow's telecon, here is an update
> regarding
> 	> the Primer's status.
> 	>
> 	> There is a last version (Feb 5) available at
> 	> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
> 	>
> 	> This answers comments from Quentin [1] and Margherita [2], as well
> as
> 	> their follow-ups [3,4]. Track of our answers are [5,6,7,8,9]
> 	> This version also takes into account a remark by Sean [10],
> answered
> 	> in [11].
> 	> Finally, the new version tries to take into account the input Guus
> 	> sent on links between OWL classes and SKOS concepts [12]
> 	>
> 	> The points that I feel now could prevent us from releasing the
> Primer
> 	> very soon are:
> 	> 1. there could be content issues, as I've noticed in [13], for OWL
> 	> classes and SKOS concepts.
> 	> 2. there are still a number of TODOs related to our finding
> solutions
> 	> on open and raised ISSUEs.
> 	> 3. there is a pending request for homogeneizing the examples, that
> is,
> 	> picking them from a same topic and concept scheme.
> 	> 4. there is a pending request on representing examples with
> figures,
> 	> and not N3 code snippets.
> 	>
> 	> I feel only 3 and 4 are important for a decision to release the
> 	> Primer, as 1 and 2 could be out of reach (the Reference faces the
> same
> 	> ISSUEs, after all).
> 	> Ed and I are working on these 3 and 4, but this is clearly
> something
> 	> that will require some time. I would welcome advice from the WG on
> this.
> 	>
> 	> Best,
> 	>
> 	> Antoine and Ed
> 	>
> 	> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0078.html
> 	> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html
> 	> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0175.html
> 	> [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0003.html
> 	> [5]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0173.html
> 	> [6]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0183.html
> 	> [7]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0217.html
> 	> [8]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0171.html
> 	> [9]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0008.html
> 	> [10]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0207.html
> 	> [11]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0216.html
> 	> [12]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0198.html
> 	> [13]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0009.html
> 	>
> 	>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
>
>
>