- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:31:31 -0600
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > Will note this for new proposals, but for current terms I think we're > stuck with what we've got i.e. changing URIs now would be too > disruptive. Huh? There isn't even a 1st working draft yet. Hasn't everybody who picked this work up so far been notified that it's subject to change? >> Does it really seem useful to define the inverses for these >> properties? >> skos:subject, skos:isSubjectOf, skos:primarySubject and >> skos:isPrimarySubjectOf. >> I think owl:inverseOf is fine for post-hoc declaration of >> inverses, but >> let's >> not make up aliases, even indirectly like this, if we can help it. It >> just makes >> dealing with this sort of data more expensive. > > We had several requests for these inverses, from implementors who find > them useful, which is why they went in. I'm not persuaded. I'm an implementor, and I find them costly. What reasons did the implementors give? >> p.p.s. The draft says "This document is the First Public >> Working Draft" >> but it's >> not. Always keep the SOTD truthful, please. > > Changed to 'This document is a W3C Editor's Working Draft' ... that OK? Yes, much better, thanks. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2005 21:11:20 UTC