Re: Versioning of SKOS Concept Schemes

Hi Bernard:

I've written about this very issue, and I'm looking at what kinds of  
backward-capability relationships we are talking about - because  
terms often split, lump, or do a number of transformations that  
change relationship structure as well as semantics (the two are  
intertwined, yes?).  You can find a short paper on this at:

http://www.slais.ubc.ca/PEOPLE/faculty/tennis-p/Tennis_SKOSOnto_2005.pdf

I hope to get more data on current examples of vocabulary evolution  
described from this perspective, so I can contribute a substantial  
statement on what kind of structure SKOS and skos-like frameworks  
might employ.

joe


On 9-Dec-05, at 2:34 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:

>
>
> I'm pretty sure this issue has been discussed and addressed before,  
> but cannot find where
> and when and how.
>
> SKOS specification uses versioning elements (depreciation etc) for  
> elements of SKOS
> itself, but makes no provision for doing the same in SKOS Concept  
> Schemes. This sounds
> like something missing.
> Why not elements such as
> 	skos:DeprecatedConcept
> 	skos:replacedBy
> 	skos:backwardCompatibleWith
> ... similar to whatever is found in OWL vocabulary to handle  
> versioning?
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> ----------------------------------
> Bernard Vatant
> Mondeca Knowledge Engineering
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> (+33) 0871 488 459
>
> http://www.mondeca.com
> http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>



Joseph T. Tennis, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Library, Archival and Information Studies
The University of British Columbia
301 - 6190 Agronomy Road
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3
CANADA
phone: 1.604.822.2431
fax: 1.604.822.6006
jtennis@interchange.ubc.ca

Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 15:47:19 UTC