- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:40:36 -0000
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Considering only the technical issue of the super-property of the SKOS Core documentation properties ... rdfs:comment does have to go as a super-prop for these props because of its range, but I've been thinking that there still should be a single property as the super-property for all SKOS Core documentation properties. What if we add a new prop e.g. 'skos:documentation' to SKOS Core to play the role that rdfs:comment currently does? 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org] > Sent: 18 February 2005 20:58 > To: Ralph R. Swick > Cc: Miles, AJ (Alistair); public-esw-thes@w3.org; > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: SKOS Core review Re: issue: non-Literal "comment" > properties Re: new draft of SKOS Core guide > > > * Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2005-02-18 15:43-0500] > > I'd hope that a generic RDF vocab browser would support data-driven > > views such that it could be user-trained (or Web-trained) > to know what > > to do with, e.g. skos:definition vs. skos:historyNote. > > (Now we have SPARQL, its XML result format, and XQuery/XSLT, we might > just have the raw ingredients for that...) > > > >> > 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 have become more than a little concerned with the references from > > the Guide to the Spec as I've been doing due-diligence on > the request > > to publish the Guide as a Working Draft. I think that any > reasonable > > reviewer of the Guide will want to follow the references to > the Spec. > > If the Spec is not ready to be published for whatever reason then > > I no longer think the WG should be requesting to publish the Guide > > independently. > > I'm convinced now. As much by the positive case as re concerns. By > having the two go out at the same time, we'll be in a position to get > slashdotted etc. and not look half-ready. > > (aside re publicity... subject 'tags' in blogs/flickr/etc are getting > a lot of attention lately, and the connection w/ SKOS is being made, > eg. see http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003702.html from > David Weinberger, writeup of v nice work from Siderean that > emphasises the extra power RDF/SKOS brings to that scene...). > > > > >> 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. > > > > > >If it is ready to go, should we hold off on the Guide and > have the two > > >go out together, cross-referenced? Or can we just put a > redirect in? I > > >think a "first working draft" is an attention-capturing > event, people > > >will print it out, think about it, etc. Do we want them to > consider both > > >docs at same time? > > > > The Guide does need to change in a minor way if the TF and WG > > concur with dropping rdfs:comment from the superclass hierarchy > > of the documentation properties. The TextArt figure in > > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-02-15#secdocumentation > > needs to be corrected. > > Good catch, sorry I missed that. > > > That might not need to hold up publication, > > but combined with other process questions I think we should wait > > and publish the two documents simultaneously. I believe the first > > Working Draft event will get far better reception in the > public if it is > > complete (both documents) rather than done in two stages. > > I think so too, on reflection and after careful review of Core today. > > cheers, > > Dan >
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 13:41:08 UTC