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

Re: ISSUE-151: Last Call Comment: skos:member definition

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:33:12 +0100
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081024073310.GA11088@skiathos>

But why include the range statement? Who needs it?

Cheers,

Alistair

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:09:37PM +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>
>
> Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>
>> Would a range statement be considered as too big a change for the spec?
>> I would live very comfortably with a range axiom for skos:member, as 
>> the naming of the property is very ambiguous. And we don't think it 
>> will be used with other kind of objects, do we?
>
> I think ading a range constraint should be fine, as we're not really 
> changing the design, only making it more precise. Can you make a concrete 
> proposal for the range constraint you'd like to add to Ref? We would have 
> to weigh carefully whether it does not break some use cases, however.
>
> Guus
>
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>> Here is a draft response to Erik on ISSUE-151, comments welcome.
>>>
>>> --- begin draft message ---
>>>
>>> Dear Erik,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your helpful comments. In response to the comment below:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:03PM +0000, SWD Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>  
>>>> ISSUE-151: Last Call Comment: skos:member definition
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/151
>>>>
>>>> Raised by:  Everyone
>>>> On product: All
>>>>
>>>> Raised by Erik Hennum in [1]:
>>>>
>>>> """
>>>> Should the specification define skos:member as having a range of
>>>> skos:Concept or skos:Collection? Should skos:member have an inverse
>>>> skos:isMemberOf property?
>>>> """
>>>>     
>>>
>>> We have not encountered any requirements to specify the range of
>>> skos:member. We propose to make no change to the current draft,
>>> leaving the range unspecified, allowing greater flexibility in the use
>>> of the SKOS collections framework, for example with third party
>>> extensions. Can you live with this?
>>>
>>> Similarly we have not encountered a requirement for an inverse of
>>> skos:member. We propose to make no change, can you live with this?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Alistair
>>> Sean
>>>
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>

> begin:vcard
> fn:Guus Schreiber
> n:Schreiber;Guus
> org:VU University Amsterdam, Computer Science
> email;internet:schreiber@cs.vu.nl
> title:Prof. dr. 
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> url:http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
> version:2.1
> end:vcard
> 


-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 07:33:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 October 2008 07:33:54 GMT