- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:28:55 -0000
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Forwarding review from Jeremy Carroll: > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll > Sent: 15 November 2005 16:29 > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: [PORT] comments on SKOS > > > > > reviewed documents > > [[ > > PORT TF > > Documents: > > SKOS Core Guide > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-10-06/ > > SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-10-06/ > > Discussion: > > Message Miles; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0195.html > > SKOS change proposals: > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#coordination-8 > ]] > > > SKOS Core Guide > > 1) suggest only having XHTML and CSS valid buttons to bottom of > document, for greater consistency with other W3C docs. (although in > editors draft useful to have them at top) > > 2) a number of things printed badly, e.g. many of the pictures did not > fit on the page, also the extract from UKAT did not wrap > > In "Introduction", para starting "SKOS Core is an application ..." > suggest reference to RDF Primer would be appropriate for intended > audience, rather than RDF Concepts, RDF Semantics, RDF Syntax > > 3) Also in Introduction, suggest other prerequisites should be > discussed, not just SW knowledge. e.g. some background in > taxonomies or > whatever > > 4) subsection entitled "Examples", suggest that ex:aResource > etc. should > be more meaningful names > > 5) Reference for URI is RFC 3986 (or maybe IRI 3987) > > 6) Suggest new section between "Labelling Properties" and > "Multilingual > Labelling" introducing mono-lingual labelling, noting that the > assumption that the reader knows that the labels are in English is in > general false on the Web > > 7) Suggest that all literals with natural language text other than in > the first section on "Labelling Properties" should have a language tag > (e.g. @en) [This is a big change in terms of number of changes] > > 8) question on dcterms:RFC1766, that RFC was updated a long > time ago to > RFC 3066, and that in turn is in the process of being updated ... does > dcterms:RFC1766 update itself or is it specifically linked to > that version > > 9) The sentence "The property skos:related is a symmetric property." > implies that the example abaove has a redundant triple. This perhaps > should be clarified, e.g. adding to the above sentence ", and > so one of > the triples can be omitted." > > 10) Suggest not using the word "recommended" since this is not a > recommendation. > > 11) Semantics of skos:hasTopConcept does have semantic import. > e.g. the following seems to be an inconsistent SKOS document: > > _:a skos:hasTopConcept eg:top . > eg:top skos:narrower eg:notTop . > > or maybe it implies that > > eg:notTop skos:narrower eg:top . > > 12) Need to clarify whether eg:narrower is reflexive or irreflexive > > 13) Most readers will be making a unique names assumption, but RDF in > general does not. > The labelling may allow the ability to force unique naming by some > semantic constraint, e.g. skos:prefLabel as an > InverseFunctionalProperty, (although that's outside OWL DL) > > This relates to the above example, in that if skos:narrower is > reflexive, and skos:prefLabel is not an InverseFunctionalProperty or > similarly constrained then > > _:a skos:hasTopConcept eg:top . > eg:top skos:narrower eg:notTop . > eg:top skos:prefLabel "Top" . > eg:notTop skos:prefLabel "Not Top" . > > entails > > eg:top owl:sameAs eg:notTop . > eg:notTop skos:prefLabel "Top" . > eg:top skos:prefLabel "Not Top" . > > If there is an IFP like constraint, or if skos:narrower is > irreflexive, > then this is inconsistent. > > > 14) Collectable Properties stuff > a question .... > > If we divide the concept of human up into two concepts adults and > children, and also up into two concepts of males and females, > then adult > is narrower than human > > <skos:Collection> > <skos:member rdf:resource="⪚male"/> > <skos:member rdf:resource="⪚female"/> > </skos:Collection> > > <skos:Collection> > <skos:member rdf:resource="⪚adult"/> > <skos:member rdf:resource="⪚child"/> > </skos:Collection> > > and > > <skos:Concept rdf:about="⪚male" /> > <skos:Concept rdf:about="⪚female" /> > <skos:Concept rdf:about="⪚adult" /> > <skos:Concept rdf:about="⪚child" /> > > <skos:Concept rdf:about="⪚human" /> > > What are the skos:broader and skos:narrower relationships > between these > 5 concepts and 2 collections? > > > 15) The para at start of subsection "Concetps in Multiple Schemas" is > incorrect. Of course RDF statements change the meaning of the things > that they are about; and not only the informal descriptions. > The example > in point 13 explores one case, the collectable properties rule is > another example. > > > 16) It would be nice if skos:prefLabel had a uniqueness property, e.g. > maybe have skos:SingleLabelScheme rdfs:subClassOf skos:ConceptScheme, > for which there is a unique naming assumption on the labels with any > given language tag. > > > > On > > SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-10-06/ > > 17)Change Policy Statement > > Has this policy been followed so far? > e.g. publish every two months? > > The policy should be reviewed to ensure that it is an honest statement > of aspiration as possible. > > > > Comment on proposed section Example:Weighted Semantic Relationships > > I don't like this at all. > > RDF reification vocabulary is normative. > It's normative semantics is very weak. > > The final comment suggesting the reification of a statement > entails the > triple is incorrect, and poorly phrased. > > > Comment on SOlution for olwImport-7 > > I very much like additional notes 3 and 4 > > Note 3: factoring out the english lexical resources: > - yes english is the default language in W3C > - but also yes the english labels should be accessible using the > same mechanisms as any other supported language. This will > allow tools > to not have to special case for english. > > Note 4: factoring out is good; factoring out the housekeeping > is likely > to be particularly beneficial. > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 16:29:14 UTC