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

Re: ISSUE-82: PropertyNames

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:39:44 +0100
Message-ID: <47960E40.6030203@few.vu.nl>
To: "Reul, Q. H." <q.reul@abdn.ac.uk>
CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

You're not making it easier :-D
But we could also imagine some vicious mind that figures out that if a 
concept "skos:note"s a literal, it is some kind of annotation for it, 
and not the other way round. It would become an interpretation even 
easier to make if we allow the range of skos:note to include for 
instance foaf:document.

Whatever happens, I think what is really important here is that we adopt 
a coherent strategy: as mentioned in [1] we've currently got a mixture 
of different conventions used for SKOS properties:
consider "inScheme" "broader" "hasTopConcept"...

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0100.html

> Hi,
>
> >From my point of view, I would rather use skos:hasNarrower rather than
> skos:hasNarrowerConcept and the same for broader properties and related
> one. The formal semantic of the properties should make it the domain and
> range of the property clear rather than its name.
>
> Contrary to Margherita [1], I believe that the documentation properties
> (i.e. skos:note, etc.) are self explanatory through their formal
> semantic.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quentin 
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of SWD Issue Tracker
> Sent: 22 January 2008 15:02
> To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-82: PropertyNames
>
>
>
> ISSUE-82: PropertyNames
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/82
>
> Raised by: Antoine Isaac
> On product: SKOS
>
>   
>> From
>>     
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html
> or http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0075.html
> or http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0089.html
>
> =======
> For all relationships as already mentioned I suggest to make
> them more clear by adding the verb. For example:
>  - skos:hasNarrowerConcept
>  - skos:hasBroaderConcept
>  - skos:hasRelatedConcept
> =======
>
> The current SKOS specification uses the URI skos:broader, skos:narrower,
> skos:related. Should these be changed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 15:40:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2008 15:40:05 GMT