Labelling style

Sorry Chaals, are you saying the rdfs:labels should be like 'in facet'
rather than 'in-facet'?  

I think this is a good suggestion.

What does everyone else reckon?  

Al.

P.s. I'm totally open to comments about what the labels for the elements of
the SKOS-Core schema should be.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles
> McCathieNevile
> Sent: 16 March 2004 12:36
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Cc: 'Tudhope D S (Comp)'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Facets in SKOS-Core 1.0
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Alistair,
> 
> a minor comment and a question.
> 
> Comment - since rdfs:label is a human readable label rather than for
> machines, it seems better to me if you just put spaces 
> between words. If you
> want to auto-generate property names from labels you can do 
> so by globbing
> them together (or camel-casing them, or whatever) but as far 
> as the machine
> is concerned you could also do so by selecting random 
> combinations of arabic
> and chinese characters that don't already appear in your 
> schema. This would
> probably encourage people to build interfaces that look for 
> human-readable
> text to present things, so may be beneficial (although I 
> suspect there are
> still enough hand-coders out there that there is some value 
> in legible tag
> names).
> 
> The question (because I don't know the answer) is "how would 
> you express the
> disjoint condition in RDF?"
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair)  wrote:
> 
> >Hi Doug, all,
> >
> >Should have mentioned, I tentatively decided to drop the 
> skos:Facet class
> >and the skos:inFacet and skos:facetMember properties in 
> SKOS-Core 1.0 after
> >there was some contention as to whether this had been 
> modelled in the right
> >way.
> >
> >But Doug if you think the way it was done was OK for now, 
> then I'm happy to
> >re-include it.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >The statements above are based on the principal that facets 
> are disjoint
> >classes (although the disjoint condition is sometimes broken 
> and therefore
> >is not expressed as a formal constraint), and facet members are class
> >instances.
> >
> >Al.
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 07:41:19 UTC