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

ISSUE-154 draft response

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:14:18 +0100
Message-Id: <848B79CF-E7A4-4D4F-9D57-D28EFABCCE89@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Peter on [ISSUE-154], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Peter. (Peter if you're lurking on this list feel free to post your
thoughts at any time.)


Dear Peter

Thank you for your comments [1]:

I would much prefer to have more formality in this reference document.
I feel that it is important to have at least those parts of the SKOS
model that fit into RDF or OWL be prominently mentioned.  It is true
that there is a RDF/XML document that has the OWL 1 portion of SKOS, but
this is only mentioned at the very end of the reference document.  I
feel that it would be much better to mention this RDF/XML document at
the beginning of the reference document.  I also note that the reference
document mentions an outdated version of the RDF/XML document.


Thanks for the comment. The outdated reference was an oversight that  
has now been rectified. If we were to add a pointer to the RDF schema  
in the introduction to the document, would that then address this  
particular concern?


	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-154] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/154
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0018.html

Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 16:14:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:54 UTC