Re: [SKOS] Re: Comments on SKOS Primer

Hi Tom,

Honnestly I'm afraid I am also too much involved in it now to have a 
clear a valid opinion on these two issues (N3-only for examples is a 
problem, drawing a more precise line between "basic" and "advanced") 
right now.
I would propose to discuss them a bit later, once we get more feedback 
from other reviewers or WG members (for instance, Justin seemed to have 
strong opinion on what was readable or not ;-).
But clearly, let's keep them in mind.

Antoine
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:17:10PM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>   
>>>   Using N3 presupposes that the audience for the Primer is
>>>   more fluent in RDF than I had assumed.  My preference
>>>   would be for the Primer to use visual graphs as in the
>>>   2005 SKOS Core Guide [6].  I am assuming that graphs make
>>>   it easier for readers who are new to RDF to see how things
>>>   fit together.  In addition to the graphs, the 2005 guide
>>>   also uses RDF/XML.  For the new Primer, my preference would
>>>   be to keep using N3, though I wonder if all of these N3
>>>   examples could be moved into an Appendix, shortening the
>>>   body of the Primer (a good thing!).
>>>       
>> That was more-or-less the initial plan to have graphs, and I have asked 
>> Alistair the sources for his graphs. However, due to lack of time I 
>> decided to drop them for the moment. Also, Ed remarked that this had the 
>> nice effect of reducing the length of the document (graphs usually takes 
>> more space), while keeping generally readable.
>> I would propose to have a small test and do as you propose, but for a 
>> later version of the draft. What was true during the holidays remains 
>> true now :-(
>>     
>
> For now, we should perhaps just decide in principle whether
> graphs should be used.  My concern is whether using N3 _only_
> will be readable for the intended audience.
>
>   
>>>      In Advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be _mapped_
>>>      to conceptual resources in other schemes and _grouped_
>>>      into labeled or ordered collections.  _Labels of concepts
>>>      can be related_ to each other.
>>>       
>> I will try to implement it in the version to review these days. But I 
>> don't guarantee that it will be ideal regarding the second part of your 
>> text. It does not fit the current structure of the Primer as well as it 
>> does for the reference :-( Unless we put "Advanced" SKOS in the title of 
>> both the "Networking" section and the "when KOS are not simple anymore" 
>> one. But I don't really like it: to me networking KOSs (re-using Concept 
>> Schemes, mapping, subject indexing) is less advanced and will be more 
>> common than things like grouping into collections and relationships 
>> between labels.
>>     
>
> That's a good point.  I saw the Essential/Advanced distinction
> and liked it but have no strong opinion on where to draw the
> line.  My point is more that if we do distinguish "advanced"
> features, we should do so consistently and try to make it
> part of the high-level story.
>
> Tom
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 23:36:08 UTC