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

Fwd: SKOS comment [ISSUE-148]

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:49:18 +0100
Message-Id: <A483BDDC-B33D-4486-A579-169F929185CB@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

For completeness (and the tracker), I am forwarding Erik's response  
to the resolution of ISSUE-148.

Thanks Erik.

	Sean

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>
> Date: 17 October 2008 17:09:39 BDT
> To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-148]
>
> Hi, Sean:
>
> Thanks for considering the issue. Yes, we can live with the  
> resolution.
>
>
> Erik Hennum
> ehennum@us.ibm.com
>
>

> Sean Bechhofer ---10/17/2008 08:59:48 AM---Dear Erik,
>

>
> From:
>
> Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>

>
> To:
>
> Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS

>
> Cc:
>
> SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

>
> Date:
>
> 10/17/2008 08:59 AM

>
> Subject:
>
> Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-148]
>
>
>
>
> Dear Erik,
>
> thanks for your comments [1,ISSUE-148]:
>
> """
> While it makes good sense to have an abstract base to handle  
> unexpected
> cases, the draft acknowledges in Section 8.6.7. Reflexivity of
> skos:broader
> and Section 8.6.8. Cycles in the Hierarchical Relation (Reflexivity of
> skos:broaderTransitive) that many applications expect hierarchical
> relationships to be irreflexive and noncyclical.
>
> Given that this requirement will be quite common, is it appropriate to
> leave it as an exercise for each application to solve in a different
> way?
> Or would it be better to define subproperties with these  
> constraints so
> this common requirement can be addressed by common SKOS  
> infrastructure?
> """
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We appreciate and understand your comments relating to the provision
> of standardised relationships. With SKOS (as with any vocabulary) the
> WG had to make decisions as to "when to stop" in terms of providing
> standardised vocabulary. As discussed in the SKOS Primer [2], custom
> extensions may be defined. In this case, we have decided to leave
> this as an exercise for the community and propose to *close* this
> issue, making no change at this point.
>
> This does not, of course close the door on the possibility of
> standardised extensions in the future.
>
> Are you able to live with this?.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sean Bechhofer
> Alistair Miles
>
> [ISSUE-148] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/148
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/ 
> 0103.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization
>
> --
> Sean Bechhofer
> School of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
>
>
>
>
>

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer





graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 05-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 07-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 09-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 11-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 13-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 15-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 17-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 19-ecblank.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: 21-ecblank.gif)

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2008 10:50:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 October 2008 10:50:52 GMT