Re: change notes vs history notes

Hi,

 > As Andy explains it below is exactly how these two note properties
 > were intended.  So you could say e.g. the function of a

I was asking about this because I suspected that maybe changeNote was 
a subprop of historyNote, but Andy's example makes it clear that it is 
not. The changeNote can be used for all sorts of small notes by the 
maintainers? THen it would be reasonable to have it in because if the 
TMS has this kind of notes (regardless whether the TMS has SKOS 
underlying it or not), it also makes sense to have it in the SKOS 
output of the TMS, as Andy already, er, notes :-)

But it seems that changeNotes NOT annotated with audience "maintainer" 
would be rare? And historyNotes NOT annotated with "user" also rare? 
I.e. it feels to me like the notes and their audience coincide. Thus 
only letting go of the public/private notion might be enough.

What would be clear examples of one note property with different 
content meant for different audiences? Something like different 
definitions of a concept either for the maintainers (more technical, 
with references etc.) or users (simplified, shorter)? Does this occur 
in practice?

Maybe this discussion is not so important because we already want to 
support attaching any property to documentation properties (see [1]) 
so dcmi:audience is but one of them, but it does matter for how we 
recommend usage in the Guide.

An additional question is where should we get the audience vocab from; 
if we don't restrict that, then you might get values like "user" and 
"users", which creates more confusion.

Mark.

[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#secdocnodestyle


-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 15:01:59 UTC