RE: issue: non-Literal "comment" properties Re: new draft of SKOS Core guide

Hi Dan,

> Re-ping. I don't see a response to this in the archives.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0057.html
> 
> I believe the Guide and the Core spec are in tension. And 
> that this could be resolved (at this stage in the design anyway)
> by dropping the 'superproperty: rdfs:comment' claim from the Core.
> If we are happy with that change happening, the Guide is, I believe,
> unaffected. The pre-WD core doc could be changed in place, I guess.

I'm happy to drop rdfs:comment as a super-prop for all 'documentation properties' - I think this has to be done for the reasons you describe.

> 
> Thoughts? I'm a little concerned w/ referencing the non-WD core spec
> from a WD. How much more work do you reckon there is on the main doc,
> Alistair?

I was thinking that the SKOS Core Spec [1] is pretty much ready to go, waiting on comments from Tom & Mark & yourself esp. re the 'policies' section I added last week.  Aiming to propose the SKOS Core Spec for first WD at the SWBP-WG telecon next thursday (24th feb), which depends on approval by Tom and Mark by tuesday/wednesday if they are willing to give it.

Oh, and I need to update all the examples linked from the core spec in line with what's in the guide, shouldn't take more than an afternoon.

Cheers,

Al.





> 
> Dan
> 
> * Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2005-02-11 12:54-0500]
> > 
> > +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, 18 February 2005 15:49:21 UTC