- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:54:53 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbd-wg@w3.org
+cc: SWBP WG
Just noticed something that looks to me like a bug; sorry
I didn't catch it earlier.
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/#secdocumentation
defines 3 idioms for documentation, and 8 properties for
public or private notes, definitions, examples etc.
They are all defined as sub-property of rdfs:comment.
[[
There are three recommended usage patterns for the SKOS Core
documentation properties:
* Documentation as an RDF Literal
* Documentation as a Related Resource Description
* Documentation as a Document Reference
]]
Unfortunately, only the first clearly fits with the definition
of http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment (the 2nd might, I'd
need to check); I'm sure the 3rd doesn't. The RDFS spec defines
the range of rdfs:comment to be rdfs:Literal. And documents aren't
literals.
My suggestion would be to drop the 'subPropertyOf' assertion, and
perhaps record an issue on this, since there is some appeal to
having the 'documentation as an RDF Literal' idiom show up as a
use of rdfs:comment, and there is some appeal to using the other
idioms. And we already have 8 properties; not sure we'd really
want 16 if we duplicated them.
As an aside, I'd be interested to see 'best practice' for using
hypertext in SKOS and in RDFS/OWL definitions and comments. Perhaps
using one of the cut-down (mobile oriented) XHTML profiles...
cheers,
Dan
<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"/>
<rdfs:label>comment</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment>A description of the subject resource.</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:domain
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
<rdfs:range
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
</rdf:Property>
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 17:54:54 UTC