- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:18:56 -0000
- To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Tom wrote: 7. In sections such as Annotation Constraints, the text says "a concept may have no more than one definition per language". This seems a touch too prescriptive, as if the Guide were declaring constraints for an XML schema instead of providing guidance in an Open World context. Maybe "should"? Mark wrote: The introduction explains how examples, rules and constraints are depicted throughout the document. For a constraint, I'm not sure I exactly understand what it means. Is it to give information on the intended use of a vocabulary item? The idea behind describing 'constraints' was to support stronger validation of SKOS Core instance data, where that is required. A 'constraint' being a restriction on the graph structures allowed in instance data which if violated would raise a validation error. One of the strongest business cases for XML and XML schema (or DTD etc.) is the possibility for strong validation of document structures (which for XML equates to data structures). Although SKOS Core is a semantic web application, which implies a commitment to open-world style usage, I believe SKOS Core should also be a viable solution for closed world (i.e. enterprise internal or business transaction) applications, where strong data validation is necessary. Many people in my experience find this sort of use case (where SKOS Core is essentially a specification of a data exchange format) compelling and more relevant to their needs. SKOS Core competes well with pure XML formats here, because of the ease with which the specification can be 'extended/refined' (more on this in another email). So anyway, I thought we should support those people who want to do stronger validation of instance data by describing constraints on the SKOS Core data model. However, I think Tom's wording change suggestion is fine. I.e. we describe a set of constraints, which 'should' be implemented, but obviously this is RDF so at the end of the day you can do what you want. Does this sound sensible? 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
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 14:19:30 UTC