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

[SKOS] When did we remove the material mentioned in ISSUE-36?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:54:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4912322C.1000004@few.vu.nl>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

Trying to answer Doug's mail below.
Especially he asks about ISSUE-36. So I'd like to re-ask my question of 
[1]. When we decided on closing ISSUE-36, we had a piece of text that 
was refering to named graphs explicitly, and also
SPARQL patterns [2]. But now this does not appear any more in the 
Reference [3].
Maybe I've missed a further resolution on that point, in which case we 
should add something to the page on ISSUE-36.
Otherwise I guess that closing an issue with a resolution that is not 
completely implemented in our docs is not really good, is it?

Antoine

[ISSUE-36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0191.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080118#L9287
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/


-------- Message original --------
Sujet: 	RE: Last Call: SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System 
Reference; SKOS Primer updated [ISSUE-164]
Date: 	Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:31:50 -0000
De: 	Tudhope D S (AT) <dstudhope@glam.ac.uk>
Pour: 	Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Copie: 	<public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Références: 	<008201c90ea3$e2e13d40$a8a3b7c0$@miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk> 
<0BA7EE4D4646E0409D458D347C508B780419AEFA@MAILSERV1.uni.glam.ac.uk> 
<48FE3D7F.30907@few.vu.nl>



Hi Antoine
thanks for getting back
yes, I am happy with the proposed changes (including third one on RDF 
named graphs, tho see comments below)
minor copy edits:-
-- at a same time --> at the same time
-- and to precise how these meanings --> and to make precise how these 
meanings
-- I wasn't totally sure what was meant by 'modularization mechani[S]m' 
although I think I got the general idea.
Eg I wasn't sure in 'allow specific applications to operate on given 
selections of concepts' precisely what they would do.
(Apologies if I'm being obtuse!) I guess its meant that the specific 
applications would extract out the selections [micro-thesauri?] and work 
with just those selections?
> We really have almost no experience here, so we prefer to say nothing 
and let the
> community define best practice in response to implementation experience.
yes I see the point. I'll probably wait and see what practices emerge 
before attempting any 'note'.
A "SKOS community best practices" wiki page sounds like a good idea.
> We could however be more explicit, and propose to replace
The change to mention RDF named graph seems sensible.
I'm not very familiar with this but does it perhaps apply beyond an 
immediate context of owl:imports
to sets of RDF statements more generally, such as the example at top 3.1.
Does the wording mean to imply a necessary association with owl:imports?
By the way, was there a definitive resolution to
'The resolution SKOS ISSUE-36 [3] '
I failed to find it in a quick browse of 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
but maybe I'm not familiar with the lay out and am overlooking it.
Could you maybe email the text or a direct link?
cheers
Doug
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 23:55:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 November 2008 23:55:16 GMT