Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints

Miika, at this stage I am not sure how to best proceed with this 
discussion, and on what mailing list. I was hoping that we can reduce 
cross-posting and interested parties would hook into the WG mailing list 
and annotate their subject lines with ISSUE-80, which would make the 
history of the discussion better traceable. I didn't want to 
over-engineer the process, and the ISSUE page on our tracker doesn't 
need to list all sub-issues explicitly.

Thanks,
Holger


On 8/14/2015 15:03, Miika Alonen wrote:
> Can you add to the issue that discussion about the role of skos:inScheme is required. Some schemes are constructed from multiple ontologies, and for many reasons uris might not match. I dont want to be the one that says that this is wrong, for example:
>
> <http://purl.org/adms/status/UnderDevelopment> a skos:Concept ;
>      skos:inScheme <http://purl.org/adms/status/1.0> ;
>      skos:notation "UnderDevelopment" ;
>      skos:prefLabel "Under development"@en .
>
> http://purl.org/adms/status/UnderDevelopment would raise error if scheme http://purl.org/adms/status/1.0 validation relies only to STRSTARTS .. and mixed SKOS vocabularies would be even worse to match.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Miika
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, "Miika Alonen" <miika.alonen@csc.fi>, "kcoyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> Cc: "Simon Cox" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, irene@topquadrant.com, martynas@graphity.org, lehors@us.ibm.com, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2015 01:34:07
> Subject: Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
>
> I have raised this topic as a formal ISSUE for the WG to consider. My
> suggestion is to continue the discussion there on the -wg mailing list
> only, keeping ISSUE-80 in the subject line.
>
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/80
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
> On 8/13/2015 20:38, Phil Archer wrote:
>>
>> On 13/08/2015 06:44, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2015 19:09, Phil Archer wrote:
>>>> Actually, in this case, the test could be:
>>>>
>>>> 1. the value of a dcterms:subject property matched
>>>> /http:\/\/id\.loc\.gov\/authorities\/subjects\/\d+$/
>>>>
>>>> AND
>>>>
>>>> 2. an HTTP HEAD request returns a 200 response
>>> Could this be extended so that the HTTP look-up only needs to happen if
>>> there is no local copy of that namespace, e.g. as a named graph?
>> I'd say that was a user choice. In some cases, a local copy would be
>> preferable for the reasons you say, in others - "have you used the
>> current concepts defined by authority X?" - can only be tested with a
>> live look up. The user would then make the choice between the slow
>> live look up and the quick local check.
>>
>>   I can
>>> imagine that many enterprise setups would not want to rely on live data
>>> from the public internet to look up reference data.  If only for
>>> performance reasons, it should probably be an option to use local copies
>>> that are updated in regular intervals. Then, if no such named graph
>>> exists, do the HTTP request as a last measure?
>> The live version isn't a fall back: it's the ground truth. So I'm
>> hoping for a  check that the data I have is referring to the external
>> resources as defined by an external authority. A stage that checked
>> that a locally held copy was still up to date could precede the
>> regular validation - HTTP caching would no doubt be useful there. This
>> seems in line with what Miika is suggesting?
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>

Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 05:26:25 UTC