- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:50:16 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Miles - I've been staying out of this a bit, but I wonder if I could push a more aggressive stance on your part.... sometimes one of my students takes forever getting a journal paper submitting - they keep waiting to get it "just right" before sending it, and eventually I have to step in and say "send it now" -- I sort of feel like that with SKOS -- there's a big and very important community interested in using this very important technology -- I think getting it out sooner, and fixing it later, is an option to consider. In this spirit let me make the following suggested ammendment to your proposal - continue through Jan 31 as planned, but if there is an extension, the DO (don't discuss) a LC version of SKOS (core and vocab) by end of Feb, This will allow tie for review of the LC and a document able to move forward to a recommendation in this WG or elsewhere. I think SKOS is too important to keep trying to nail down all the details in too many ways -- and SKOS could be a major boom for the SW community - imagine, we could have some of the world's largest libraries releasing major thesauri in such a way that each concept has a URI that we could use in our schemas and ontology (and link back to their online sources) - this is simply too rich a vein not to be mined, and speaking in my role as a W3C AC member, I, and my organization, encourage the SKOS group to move this to some rec track venue asap. -Jim Hendler, MIND Lab p.s. Those of you who are W3C members can see that I have been making this same point as part of the W3C Sem Web Coordination Group, but this message does not speak for the CG, just for my lab. At 15:24 +0000 12/12/05, Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) wrote: >Hi Mark, > >What I'm suggesting re planning for SKOS is that we focus on >developing the SKOS Core proposals list [1], in its current form, up >to Jan 31 2006, which is the scheduled end of the current WG >charter. If at Jan 31 2006, or sometime before then, we find out >that the WG is getting a 2 month extension, then we can talk about >scheduling a 3rd review, and at that time pick those items from the >list that have good consensus for consideration at that review, in >the same way we did for previuos reviews. Whatever items remain >open on the proposals list at the end of the current WG charter >become input to the next WG charter. > >I.e. the inputs to the next WG are: the latest WD of the SKOS Core >Guide and the SKOS Core Vocab Spec, and "open" items from the SKOS >Core Proposals list. > >Cheers, > >Al. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#secChange > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark van Assem [mailto:mark@cs.vu.nl] >> Sent: 12 December 2005 14:46 >> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) >> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [PORT] quality assurance and integrity testing for skos >> data >> >> >> Hi Alistair, >> >> This comes back to the same thing I posted a few days ago [1]: >> maybe different categories of issues are in order because this is not >> a change proposal. >> >> Mark. >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Dec/0002 >> >> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: >> > Hi Mark, >> > >> > >> >>Hi Alistair, >> >> >> >>I agree, but what kind of proposal do you mean? A proposal >> to include >> >>some text on quality assurance in the Guide? >> > >> > >> > Well, I'd just like to add an item to the proposals list >> that says something along the lines of: we think quality >> assurance is important, and furthermore we can't capture all >> of the intended semantics of SKOS Core using RDF+OWL, so we >> think this should be adressed at some point, possibly with a >> test framework similar to that published at [1]. >> > >> > I.e. we're flagging up the issue, we're not sure exactly >> what to do about it, let's get some feedback. >> > >> > I think it's a bit early to suggest that e.g. [1] become an >> appendix to the SKOS Core Guide, as the schemarama idea needs >> more air, plus SPARQL isn't solid yet either. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Al. >> > >> > [1] >> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts >> /integrity.html >> > >> > >> >>CHeers, >> >>Mark. >> >> >> >>Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi all, >> >>> >> >>>I've tidied up some work I did a little while ago on >> >> >> >>quality assurance and 'integrity testing' for SKOS data using >> >>SPARQL queries. I've written this up at: >> >> >> >>> >> >>http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts >> >>/integrity.html >> >> >> >>>I think quality assurance is an important issue, and I'd >> >> >> >>like to acknowledge that by adding an item to the SKOS Core >> >>proposals list. Any objections to that? >> >> >> >>>I've also implemented a test server, so you can try out the >> >> >> >>test cases on your SKOS data, see: >> >> >> >>>http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/ >> >>> >> >>>Cheers, >> >>> >> >>>Al. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>--- >> >>>Alistair Miles >> >>>Research Associate >> >>>CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory >> >>>Building R1 Room 1.60 >> >>>Fermi Avenue >> >>>Chilton >> >>>Didcot >> >>>Oxfordshire OX11 0QX >> >>>United Kingdom >> >>>Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk >> >>>Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440 >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >> >> Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam >> >> markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam >> markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark >> -- Professor James Hendler Director Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery 301-405-2696 UMIACS, Univ of Maryland 301-314-9734 (Fax) College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler (New course: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler/CMSC498w/)
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:50:59 UTC