re: [PORT] Scoping for Proposed Working Drafts

This is discussion re the document outline:

[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/PublishingThesauriPrimerToc

.. and the plan for documents for SWBP-WG PORT TF:

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Nov/0014.html

Hi Chaals,

> Looks like a good plan to me. I agree that it is important to 
> have stuff that
> covers the entire spec (in part this is a good test of it. If you find
> documentation that seems like it's descriing something odd, 
> it quite possily
> is).

Cheers for comment.

> 
> Some very rough thoughts aout the Wiki Page:
> 
> Break out the RDF into seperate pieces that you can discuss 
> one at a time -
> see the approach in 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/talks/200311-earl/all which
> boils down to about a single page for for enough to make 
> stuff work (the rest
> is advanced thoughts and optimisations).
> 
> So each entry for the term (term, narrower terms, etc) would 
> have a few lines
> describing how to encode that piece of information.
> 

I was thinking about this, but was trying to keep this doc [1] as concise as
possible.  Also as the SKOS Core Guide part 1 takes each of the features in
turn, I thought it would be OK not to do that in [1].  I reckon the
correspondance is pretty obvious, but then I work with RDF every day.  Would
like to hear what others (esp non-RDF folks) think about this.

> Simplify the example metadata for the thesaurus itself...
> 

How?

Thanks,

Al.


> 
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >At the SWBPD-WG face-to-face meeting last week, we discussed 
> whether to
> >initially publish a document that is a very quick and easy guide to
> >publishing fairly standard thesauri in RDF.  Such a document 
> should be of ~3
> >page length, and use a concrete example of a thesaurus, 
> already published in
> >RDF.
> >
> >I've put together a draft of such a document on the SkosDev 
> wiki, see:
> >
> >[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/PublishingThesauriPrimerToc
> >
> >I would also like to suggest that we *do* aim to publish a 
> 'guide' document
> >for SKOS Core, something like what is at [3], to describe 
> and illustrate the
> >use of *all* of the features of SKOS Core, and also to discuss some
> >additional issues.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 13:36:35 UTC