W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: SKOS Primer editorial problems

From: Barclay, Daniel <daniel@fgm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:51:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4A82E4F3.8090601@fgm.com>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Antoine Isaac wrote:
...
> Thanks very much for the very detailed comments! 

You're welcome.  It's nice to know that my tendency toward details
was helpful.



>> * Section 4.7 says:
>>
>>      Applications that require finer granularity will greatly benefit
>>      from SKOS being a Semantic Web vocabulary.
>>
>>    That really should be:
>>
>>      Applications that require finer granularity will greatly benefit
>>      from SKOS's being a Semantic Web vocabulary.
>>
>>    (The gerund ("being") should have a possessive noun (SKOS's)
>>    before it, not a plain noun.)
> 
> 
> Done. We are however wondering, whether it should be "SKOS's", as you 
> suggest, or "SKOS'"...

Yeah, I'm not fully sure about that one.

The rule I was taught was this:

If the word already has two "s" sounds as the end (separated by
some vowel, of course), you don't add another one for the
possessive form (based on the difficulty of saying three "s"
syllables in a row).  The typical example words were "Jesus" and
"Genesis" (e.g., "Jesus' mother" or "Genesis' beginning").

Otherwise, even if the word ends with an "s" sound (only a single
one), you add one for the possessive form (e.g., the possessive
form of "boss" would be "boss's").

Admittedly, I don't now whether grammar authorities still go by
that rule or now go by a modified version.


> We kept as such the sentences when there was no ambiguity, e.g.:
> - A more appropriate KOS
> - its more specific species

Yes, that sounds correct.



Daniel

-- 
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:57:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:57:21 GMT