- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:41:14 +0100
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ralph, > -- > [11]symbolicLabelsRange-3 > refactor symbolic labelling properties and change range > to DCMI type Image. > > The semantics of altSymbol and prefSymbol feel under-specified to me. > I cannot, for example, decide whether the use case would be adequately > (or perhaps better) handled through additional to UNICODE such that > the desired symbol(s) can be conveyed as text. It is not clear > whether symbols used as "preferred symbolic labels" should have > glyph-like semantics. The BLISS example and reference would > support such a presumption. I suggest there exists here an > opportunity to add clarity. What do you mean by 'glyph-like semantics'? The original idea was just to allow folks to 'label' their concepts with images (that have GET-able representations as jpeg/gif/png/svg/blah), where the image depicts a symbolic representation of the concept, for the purpose of creating graphical representations in web documents etc. Do you have any suggestions for how we can add clarity? > > I appreciate the utility of moving the grounding from FOAF to DCMI > but the comment that raised this issue noted that there were other > FOAF dependencies. I wonder why the remaining one (subjectIndicator) > is not being addressed? To be honest, I'd forgotten that the range of skos:subjectIndicator is foaf:Document. I'd be happy to discuss this for the next review. > > Any objection based on the semantics of DCMI:Image are apparently > made moot by the stated intention [12] to modify the FOAF > specification. Clearly, if FOAF:Image becomes a subclass of > DCMI:Image the net result is the same for applications. I don't think this is true. Just because FOAF has made the foaf:Image class a sub-class of dcmitype:Image, what guarantees do I have as an implementer that this won't change? I can understand implementers currently preferring a dependency on DCMI, where all changes however minor have to go through the Usage Board and public comment periods, to a dependency on FOAF, where the reality is that Danbri can and does tweak on short notice. Cheers, Al. > > [11] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#symbolicLabelsRange-3 [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Jun/0057.html
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 14:41:27 UTC