re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] Moving semantic relation property exten sions to an 'extensions' vocab.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair)  wrote:

>
>Any further comments on this proposal?
>
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Aug/0081.html>
>
>...
>
>I would like to propose that the following properties be removed from
>SKOS Core, and be moved to an 'extensions' vocabulary

+0.1

>(perhaps under the namespace <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions#>?)
>...

-1

The things have been defined. If you knwo that nobody uses them, then it
might make sense to pretend they never existed. Since you likely don't know
that (I discovered a couple of weeks ago that some spanish-speaking folks I
had gone looking for were using broader/narrower stuff already. I hope to
find out how much in a couple of weeks. If people are doing it in chinese I
don't suppose I will find out for ages[*].

So I would suggest leaving them where they are, and using some simple owl to
define a vocabulary of extensions or things you're not sure about, as opposed
to things you are...

(I found
http://cdls.nstl.gov.cn/mt040526/archives/docs/3-%CA%FD%D7%D6CCABE9%B9%E3DCA%FD%BE%A8040523%A3%A9.pdf
mentions SKOS-core but the great firewall menans that I don't know what's in
it. There is other stuff, including articles and maybe translations...)

>My reasons are:
>
>(1) These are the least stable parts of SKOS Core, and I don't expect
>them to stabilise in the short term (i.e. months).  So they're getting
>in the way of publishing short term.
>(2) They impinge on the whole 'thesauri -> ontologies' question, which
>again I don't think we're going to have an answer for in the next couple
>of months.

Fair enough

>(3) They clutter up SKOS Core, and distract from its fundamental features.

I'm not sure if you mean that you expect people to read the RDF Vocabulary
definition stuff that includes SKOS core, and it's big because there is other
stuff in it, or you mean that the explanations of SKOS-Core include these and
that makes them distracting.

I would suggest that it is the documentation written for people whose visual
form is important - the machines don't really care where things are defined,
except that if they move around there are problems.

just my 2 cents

cheers

Chaals

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 16:15:23 UTC