RE : Comments on SKOS Extension for Sub. Indexing

Hi Jakob,

[lots of snipping, my mailer is really horrible when answering e-mails]


> Well, frankly speaking I disagree with your proposal. Ranganathan's
facets may seem fundamental but they are still artificial. They are just
*one* possible way of facet analysis. SKOS should not make them
permanent but allow *any* set of facets.
>

+1. If SKOS should explicitly implement facets ... (we could only use specialization of the existing subject property)


>Well, the example could be more convincing but anyway: We don't need new
properties and classes in SKOS for that kind of indexing. You should
create a new ontology with DISCIPLINE, ENTITY, ACTION, TYPE,
APPLICATION, and METHOD and derive these properties from skos:subject
instead of trying to put them into SKOS.
>

I only let the previous comment to show how I agreed with you even before (re-)reading this proposal ;-)

>By the way the properties
skos:primarySubject
skos:isPrimarySubjectOf
should also be skipped (do you read this Mike? ;-) because they are not
well defined (what is "primary"? why isn't there a "secondary"? or
"third?" What about weighted index terms?
To support syntactic indexing in SKOS first the Coordination issue needs
to be solved. And I am not sure whether syntactic indexing is really an
SKOS issue. The most important is maybe *ordered sets* of index terms.
>

This reads weird. In my opinion this 'ordered set' idea raises the same problem as the primary or secondary subject one... If you have a motivation for an ordered set, then you have specific indexing needs, an it would perhaps be more adequate to include your own subject specializations (unless you plan unlimited number of ordered subjects)

>P.P.S: What's the state of skos:Notation and skos:Coordination?
>

For coordination it is still in the air, cf the list of issue (and requirement) that are being currently worked out on the Semantic Web Deployment wiki [1]
For notations, well we could raise a dedicated issue, but it would be nice for SWD to have more motivating use cases than the single Iconclass one I contributed. I suppose UDC would be enough, but have no time to write it down now :-(

Notice by the way that all these SWD things, even if publicly available, are still work in progress. They are made indeed public to ease discussion, within our working group or outside...

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosIssuesSandbox