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

Re: [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer

From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:11:16 +0100
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090107121116.GA3148@octavius>

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:52:46PM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >1674,1676c1676,1678
> >< <code>skos:prefLabel</code>, in combination with private use language
> >< (sub-)tags as defined by <cite>RFC4646</cite> [<cite><a
> >---
> >><code>skos:prefLabel</code>, in combination with private-use language
> >>tags (or subtags) as defined by <cite>RFC 4646</cite> [<cite><a
> In principle I'd be happy with this change, but 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt still uses "private use" subtags...

Well, in that case, okay.

> >Systematic spelling of "modeling" and "labeling"
> I supposed this applies as well to "labelled", I've changed them
> Btw there are some "labelling" in the SKOS reference!

Well spotted. Alistair and Sean take note...

> >"Like" versus "such as" (really not a big deal, but "such as" is sometimes 
> >more precise)
> OK, except maybe
> >1133,1134c1134,1136
> >< re-assert the RDF statements for the <code>ex1:cats</code> concept, e.g., its
> >< <code>skos:prefLabel</code>. Assuming <code>ex1:cats</code> has been
> >---
> >>re-assert things such as the <code>skos:prefLabel</code> of the
> >>the <code>ex1:cats</code> concept.
> >>Assuming <code>ex1:cats</code> has been
> You would use "things" here, really? Wouldn't "Information" be more 
> accurate, if you don't like "statements"?

The sentence in question is:

    Note that the information source defining the new concept
    scheme does not re-assert the RDF statements for the
    ex1:cats concept, e.g., its skos:prefLabel.

I think it was the notion of "re-asserting" an RDF statement
that had me briefly flummoxed. As in: is this about making
NEW statements that happen to say the same thing or actually
about somehow re-asserting THE SAME statements (and how does
one do that - with some sort of import...)?

I agree about "things" versus "information", and I think
"replicate" might clarify things, so perhaps:

    ...does not replicate information about the
    <code>ex1:cats</code> concept, such as its preferred label.


Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 12:12:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC