Re: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd review: notes-2

Hi Alistair,

I think more text/examples are required to explain the difference 
between the editorial, change and historynote (at least it took me a 
lot more text thru the mailing list to get it...).

Two examples I scraped from Andy [1] and one from Alistair [2]:

<skos:changeNote xml:lang='en'>
 > Checked in 2005-08-03T13:30:00-04:00 by userX
 > Check in comment: completed changes to all concepts relating to pears.
 > </skos:changeNote>
 >
 > But the history note might read:
 >
 > <skos:historyNote xml:lang='en'>
 > Pears were previously listed as a narrower term under vegetables
 > instead of fruits.
 > </skos:historyNote>

 > ex:conceptA a skos:Concept;
 >  skos:prefLabel 'Animals';
 >  skos:altLabel 'Fauna';
 >  skos:editorialNote [
 >    skos:onLbl 'Fauna';
 >    rdf:value 'Check with Mr.X. whether to keep "Fauna".';
 >  ];
 > .

This makes it more clear what the difference in function/audience 
usually is.

We could also state that changeNote is likely to be some sort of 
CVS/TMS comment.

I also think it would be good to have examples for the notes + 
"Documentation as a Related Resource Description" pattern (i.e. a note 
+ the dcterms:audience). Remember this is one of the reasons not to 
have ranges for the note properties at all and this may not be 
apparent to most readers. We'd also need an example of when one of the 
notes would be for another audience entirely - thereby justifying the 
  recommendation of this pattern.

BTW still wondering what the values for dcterms:audience should be - 
does anyone have a clue?

Cheers,
Mark.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0014
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0017

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> Any comments on the following redraft of the 'Documentation Properties' section of the SKOS Core Guide:
> 
> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/secdocumentation.html?rev=1.4
> 
> ...?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>>[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
>>(Alistair)
>>Sent: 29 September 2005 16:10
>>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Mark van Assem
>>(E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail)
>>Subject: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd review: notes-2
>>
>>
>>
>>Re: change proposal notes-2 [1]
>>
>>N.B. this proposal requires the following changes to the SKOS 
>>Core RDF/OWL description:
>>
>>remove statements
>>{
>>skos:definition rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
>>skos:example rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
>>skos:scopeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
>>skos:historyNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote.
>>skos:changeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:privateNote.
>>skos:editorialNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:privateNote.
>>}
>>
>>add statements
>>{
>>skos:publicNote a owl:DeprecatedProperty;
>>  dct:isReplacedBy skos:note.
>>
>>skos:privateNote a owl:DeprecatedProperty;
>>  dct:isReplacedBy skos:note.
>>
>>skos:note a rdf:Property;
>>  rdfs:label 'note'@en;
>>  skos:definition 'A general note, for any purpose.'@en;
>>  rdfs:comment 'This property may be used directly, or as a 
>>super-property for more specific note types.'@en;
>>  skos:example 
>><http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/examples/note.rdf.xml>;
>>  rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core>;
>>  vs:term_status 'unstable';
>>  dct:issued '2005-09-29';
>>  dct:replaces skos:privateNote;
>>  dct:replaces skos:publicNote;
>>.
>>
>>skos:definition rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
>>skos:example rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
>>skos:scopeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
>>skos:historyNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
>>skos:changeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
>>skos:editorialNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note.
>>}
>>
>>N.B. this proposal also requires redrafting of the section 
>>'Documentation Properties' from the SKOS Core Guide [2].
>>
>>Mark [3] hasn't raised any objections to this change, 
>>although he has noted that the question of audience and 
>>function overlapping possibly arises for the properties 
>>skos:historyNote, skos:changeNote and skos:editorialNote.  
>>Discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of the current review.
>>
>>Ralph [4] hasn't raised any objections to this change.  Some 
>>responses to his comments below:
>>
>>
>>>Rationale is clear.  Do you intend to add examples to the 
>>>specification,
>>>similar to that in [6]?  I expect this will be a FAQ.  (You 
>>
>>did write
>>
>>>in a followup to that thread that you would add those 
>>
>>examples, though
>>
>>>the change proposal doesn't make that clear.)  Perhaps that 
>>
>>is what is
>>
>>>meant by the sub-proposal to add dcterms:audience example.  
>>
>>I suspect
>>
>>>that it would be wise to circulate that example to the mailing list
>>>for comment.
>>
>>I intended to draft a section of prose for the SKOS Core 
>>Guide asap and circulate for comment.
>>
>>
>>>I observe that there is useful clarifying material in the thread
>>>about the semantics of editorialNote [7].  I found Stella's
>>>citation in [8] informative.  (The [BS8723] reference [9] in the
>>>SKOS Core Guide does not give a non-practitioner enough information
>>>to locate this document without the aid of, e.g. Google.  I doubt,
>>>for example, that many readers would know to what organization "BSI"
>>>refers.  Please expand that reference some more.)
>>
>>I'll try to incorporate Stella's clarifying material into the 
>>new prose for the guide.  Also I'll expand the BSI reference.
>>
>>
>>>I worry a bit about the vocabulary management side effects of making
>>>such a change to the property hierarchy, but I observe that 
>>>implementors
>>>were given notice that this area could change as both publicNote and
>>>privateNote have status [10] 'unstable' in the 10 May specification.
>>>Of necessity, that status should be understood to propagate to
>>>subProperties so I think implementers have been given appropriate
>>>caution.
>>
>>I'm not sure what to say about this.  I think the notion of 
>>assigning 'stability' to a class or prop is a reasonable 
>>solution for the short term, but issues such as you raise 
>>have not been worked out.  Interesting to discuss further, 
>>but beyond the scope of the current review (something for VM :).
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Al.
>>
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#notes-2
>>[2] 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#se
> 
> cdocumentation
> 
>>[3] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0000.html
>>[4] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Sep/0007.html
>>[6] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Jul/0000.html
>>[7] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0000.html
>>[8] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0007.html
>>[9] 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#refBS8723
>>[10] 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20050510/#secChange
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>>>[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
>>>(Alistair)
>>>Sent: 29 September 2005 14:50
>>>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Mark van Assem
>>>(E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail)
>>>Subject: [PORT] Status of SKOS Core 2nd review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I'm going to start wrapping up the second review, taking it 
>>>proposal by proposal so the emails don't get too long.
>>>
>>>Thanks again to both reviewers for all their hard work.
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 08:19:34 UTC