W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > June 2008

[SKOS] transfering formal comments to SWD group (was RE : When did SKOS namespace change, and why?)

From: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:58:50 +0200
Message-ID: <68C22185DB90CA41A5ACBD8E834C5ECD04953DE2@goofy.wpakb.kb.nl>
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Thomas Bandholtz" <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
Cc: "SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Jérôme Mainka <mainka@antidot.net>, "Thomas Francart" <thomas.francart@mondeca.com>
Hi Bernard (and others)

By the way if you have formal comments (or insults ;-) do not forget that as stated in the reference

> All comments are welcome and may be sent to public-swd-wg@w3.org; please include the text "SKOS comment" in the subject line. 

Once again, I transfer it to the SWD list myself, but I think you should re-write yourself the mail below to make it more 'serious' (it's not the content, but the fact that I'm transfering an ongoing discussion without any edition).



-------- Message d'origine--------
De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Bernard Vatant
Date: mar. 17/06/2008 10:32
À: Thomas Bandholtz
Cc: SKOS; Jérôme Mainka; Thomas Francart
Objet : Re: When did SKOS namespace change, and why?


> Hi Bernard,
> 2008/05/skos is not downwards compatible with 2004/02/skos!
> E.g.skos:subject is discontinued, and there is no class TopConcept any 
> more.
OK. Let me explain my use case and concern. We've been using SKOS in 
Mondeca for quite a while, among other things, for outcoming workflow 
towards search engines (Antidot, in cc).
This is not for toys, it's implemented in production workflow with major 
customers. See e.g., http://itis1.antisearch.net/fpnrportal/. You won't 
see it, but there is SKOS under the hood of the faceted classification. 
And also we've been importing vocabularies published in SKOS, like GEMET 
which you know well.
Consider we have been as careful as to use only SKOS features we 
considered stable, and actually they are, (so none of the above), namely 
we've been using only so far in this workflow.


All of those have been there since the early SKOS drafts, even well 
before it was on the W3C track, and they are still there in the new 
release, but with a new namespace. Why?
The semantics of those has not changed, or has it?

> So you shouldn't just change a namespace without considering the need 
> of further changes in structure, if you want to do so.
Not sure who "you" refers to here? "us", the users, or "them" the SKOS 
> I'm not really sure about "any solid reason for such a change", I only 
> see this has not been guided by a wise versioning policy :-)
> This raises the question if we would need some guidelines for Ontology 
> governance.
> Anyway, http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core# still is a cool uri!
> You don't have to change anything.
Thomas, I don't follow you here. If we don't change anything, we keep 
using the 2004/ namespace, what happens next? Nothing in our internal 
workflow, but no compatibility with vocabularies and applications using 
the new namespace.

What I find *very* unwise, to say the least, is that the new draft does 
not even contains a warning that the namespace has changed! And I can't 
remember having this discussed on line. Are there any pointers to 
where/when/why this decision was take? There has been a lot of debate on 
this list for much more minor points.

I will not write down here the various reactions of people involved in 
the production chain here, first because I'm not used to be rude on 
line, and second because I'm afraid it would go beyond the average 
knowledge of  french for most people in this forum :-$ .

Looking forward to more explanations from SKOS editors.

> Best, Thomas
> Bernard Vatant schrieb:
>> Hi all
>> Reading through the latest draft dated 9 June 2008 at 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
>> The SKOS namespace URI is now http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#,
>> whereas in the previous versions it was 
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
>> The latter has been used extensively by applications and published 
>> vocabularies, which will have to be changed to be conformant to the 
>> new namespace.
>> Was there any solid reason for such a change?
>> Thanks!
>> Bernard


*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 09:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:48 UTC