- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:46:30 +0200
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi, > If you have any objections to these changes, or wish to raise any is sues, please do so at this time by email to this list. Sorry for the delay - here are my comments. * subjectIndicatorUse-1: No comments. * notes-2 Review proposal notes-2 [1] says "There is a requirement for stating the intended audience of a note independently from the function of the note". With that in mind I am wondering about the following properties: - skos:historyNote "A note about the past state/use/meaning of a concept." - skos:changeNote "A note about a modification to a concept." - skos:editorialNote "A note for an editor, translator or maintainer of the vocabulary." The editorialNote seems to mix up audience and function, and could be replaced by usage of either skos:historyNote or skos:changeNote with the appropriate audience attached to it. I also am still wondering about the overlap between skos:historyNote and skos:changeNote (is the difference large enough to warrant separate properties?), but maybe that is best left until after the review. * symbolicLabelsRange-3: Looking into dcmitype:Image [2] I noticed that it is not only a class but an instance as well (of dcterms:DCMIType). This seems tricky for us, as this means that as soon as software (interpreting skos:Concepts with skos:symbol attached to it) also imports the whole dcmitype vocabulary, we're outside OWL DL. Seems that we gain a little and risk a lot in this way by moving to dcmitype:Image. But this question must have popped up with others, so maybe most don't see this as a problem? Can anyone comment on this? * seeAlsoTranslations-4: No comments. Regards, Mark. ------------- [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#notes-2 [2] http://dublincore.org/2003/12/08/dctype#Image -- Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 12:46:35 UTC