- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:25:22 +0200
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi everyone,
As an answer to ISSUE-226 [1], Ed and I are proposing a new editor's draft [2] and the answer below this mail.
Your input would be welcome, so that we can send the answer to Daniel Barclay quickly. There were really a lot of subtle comments, it would be nice to get his feedback on the changes as soon as possible!
Cheers,
Antoine
[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/226
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090727.html
=============== PROPOSED ANSWER
Dear Daniel,
Thanks very much for the very detailed comments! That is feedback which is very precious to get, as our editorial resources are rather limited.
We have recorded your comments as a formal issue at [1].
We have implemented a number of changes in the SKOS Primer, as described at the end of this mail, and a new editor's draft is available at [2]. We would really like to hear from you whether these changes are satisfactory!
Best regards,
Antoine Isaac and Ed Summers
[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/226
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090727.html
>
> * Section 2.2 says:
>
> The first characterization of concepts are ..
>
> (There is a singular subject but a plural verb.)
>
> That should probably be:
>
> The first characterizations of concepts are ..
>
> (Or does British English do this differently that American English?
Changed as you recommend.
> * Section 2.2.2 says:
>
> However, and even though SKOS is not intended as a guide for
> KOS design replacing existing standards [ISO-2788, BS8723-2],
> the reader should be aware ...
>
> The "and" is superflous.
It has been removed.
> Something in or near "a guide for KOS design replacing existing
> standards" appears to be unparsable (or at least is confusing).
>
>
> * Section 2.2.2 says:
>
> ... this does not correspond to a recommended practice.
>
> That probably would be clearer as simply "... this is not a
> recommended practice" (or, better yet, "... this is not recommended").
The whole sentence now reads;
> However, even though SKOS is not intended to replace existing guides for KOS design [ISO-2788,
> BS8723-2], the reader should be aware that upward posting is not recommended.
We hope it is better!
> * Section 3.1 says:
>
> ... a concept cannot possess two different preferred labels
> in a same language.
>
> That probably should be "... in the same language."
Done.
> * Similarly, section 3.3 says:
>
> Note that a same resource can have several subjects ...
>
> That should be "... the same resource ..." (or something like
> "a single resource").
Changed into "a single resource".
> * Section 4.1 says:
>
> Readers should however be aware that not using collections,
> even if more intuitive, may result in a harmful loss of
> semantic accuracy.
>
> That should probably say "even if that is more intuitive"; as
> written, it sounds like it's referring to the collections
> (as if it said "even if they are more intuitive").
"even if that is more intuitive" it is!
> * The next sentence says:
>
> For many description applications, for instance, "node labels"
> are entities of really specific nature ...
>
> That should probably say "... entities of a really specific nature
> ..."
Done.
> * Section 4.3 says "associated to" (instead of "associated with").
Done.
Note, in section 2.4 there was also a "allows all the documentation associated to a concept". I've changed it.
> * Section 4.3 says:
>
> ... the SKOS vocabulary has been appended with an optional
> extension for labels, SKOS-XL.
>
> That should be something like:
>
> ... the SKOS vocabulary has been augmented with an optional
> extension for labels, SKOS-XL.
Done
> * Section 4.5 says:
>
> ... the sets of all couples of resources related by P (its
> graph), as a subset of Q's, is likely to miss ..
>
> That "sets" apparently should be "set".
Exactly!
> * Section 4.7 says:
>
> SKOS is intended to serve as a common denominator between
> different modeling approaches. As such it is hoped that the
> current vocabulary specification will allow many existing KOSs
> to be ported to the Semantic Web.
>
> The "as such" and the following text don't fit together.
>
> (The subject of the following clause ("it"; the thing that is
> hoped) isn't the thing (SKOS) that is the type of thing (a common
> denominator) mentioned before the "as such.")
>
> One fix to that problem would be to write:
>
> SKOS is intended to serve as a common denominator between
> different modeling approaches. As such, the current vocabulary
> hopefully allows many KOSs to be
> ported to the Semantic Web.
>
> (Of course, if the authors were trying to avoid using "hopefully"
> that way, a different fix would be needed.)
Done. And we indeed removed "hopefully", not harming much our initial purpose, we think.
> * 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'"...
> * Section 5.1 says:
>
> Another example are ...
Fixed.
> * There are a number of occurrences of using "more" like this:
>
> ... in combination with more formal languages such as ...
>
> That does follow the normal punctuation rule of not hyphenating to
> join an adverb ("more" in this case) with a following adjective
> that it modifies ("formal"). However, because of the ambiguity
> (between "more languages that are formal" vs. "languages that
> are more formal"), it seems that those occurrences should be
> punctuated as:
>
> ... in combination with more-formal languages such as ...
This is extremely precise a comment! We implemented the suggestion, and also changed the following occurrences:
focused on more advanced representation needs
-> focused on more-advanced representation needs
aggregates more specialized notions
-> aggregates more-specialized notions
to fit more specific types of documentation
-> to fit more-specific types of documentation
deal with more advanced representation needs
-> deal with more-advanced representation needs
to reflect more general (and possibly indirect) ancestor relationships
-> to reflect more-general (and possibly indirect) ancestor relationships
specializing existing SKOS constructs into more specific ones
-> specializing existing SKOS constructs into more-specific ones
from more general "ancestor-descendant" links
-> from more-general "ancestor-descendant" links
We kept as such the sentences when there was no ambiguity, e.g.:
- A more appropriate KOS
- its more specific species
> * The appendix says:
>
> SKOS does not itself specify rules on how to create concept
> schemes, however its data model reflects some KOS construction
> principles.
>
> That should be punctuated as:
>
> SKOS does not itself specify rules on how to create concept
> schemes; however, its data model reflects some KOS construction
> principles.
Changed.
> * The appendix also has an instance of "a same concept" (which seemingly
> should be "the same concept").
Changed into "a single concept".
> * The appendix says:
>
> For example, skos:closeMatch and skos:exactMatch separate cases
> where semantic equivalence is not exact but can be accepted for
> a given application, from cases where equivalence is perfectly
> valid from a semantic perspecitve
>
> The comma seems to be extraneous.
>
> The last word is misspelled.
>
> The sentence-end period is missing.
The whole sentence was changed into:
For example, skos:exactMatch and skos:closeMatch separate cases where equivalence is perfectly valid from a semantic perspective from other cases where semantic equivalence is not exact but can be accepted for a given application.
> * The appendix says "transfered" (instead of "transferred").
Changed.
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 16:26:08 UTC