W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > December 2004

FW: [PORT] notes for PORT TF

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:02:25 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DADD@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Reposting this because it didn't appear in public archives:

-----Original Message-----
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ (Alistair)
Sent: 24 November 2004 16:37
To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'; 'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'
Subject: [PORT] notes for PORT TF

Hi all,

Guus said at the F2F that it would be a good idea to publish notes that
don't even have the word 'SKOS' in the title ... i.e. notes that are
specifically written for the controlled vocabularies user community.  

I agree with this.  The draft at [1] entitled 'Quick Guide to Publishing a
Controlled Vocabulary on the Semantic Web' is a first go at doing this.

However, [1] is deliberately very short, and doesn't go near many of the
issues that need to be covered.

What about a note called something like 'Guide to Publishing Controlled
Vocabularies on the Semantic Web', with a table of contents looking
something like:

Guide to Publishing Controlled Vocabularies on the Semantic Web
	Step 1: Allocate URIs
	Step 2: Create an RDF Description
		Simple Term Lists
		Terms with Definitions (Glossaries)
		Vocabularies with Non-Preferred Terms
		Structured Vocabularies
			Associative Relationships
		Thesauri with Node Labels
		Thesauri with Guide Terms
		Faceted Thesauri
		Classification Schemes
	Step 3: Publish the RDF Description

... with examples (real as available) that use features from SKOS Core as

The other thing is that, even with a document like the above, I still think
a 'SKOS Core Guide' is necessary, because we need some sort of descriptive,
normative reference that says 'this is how you should use SKOS Core'.  

If we did have something like the above, we could restrict the scope of the
'SKOS Core Guide' to much less than what is currently at [2] ... i.e. the
point of [2] would then be just to specify the proper usage of SKOS Core,
with examples as necessary.  These examples would have to be made up for the
purpose, because nobody has yet deployed according to the current
specification of SKOS Core.

So then the list of documents proposed for the PORT TF would become:

A. SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
	A human-readable description of the SKOS Core RDF vocabulary,
including status information (essentially a 'namespace document' for SKOS

B. SKOS Core Guide
	Descriptive normative reference for how to use SKOS Core.

C. Quick Guide to Publishing Thesauri on the Semantic Web
	Very short how-to document with a concrete example.

D. Guide to Publishing Controlled Vocabularies on the Semantic Web
	Extended document, exemplifying how to express various types of
controlled vocabulary in RDF, with concrete examples as available.

Does this seem like a good idea?  I know I'm making more work for myself and
the PORT TF, but I want the focus scope and aim of each document to be very
clear.  For a start, this makes them much easier to write.  (I realised that
with [2] I'd been trying to do two things at the same time.)

Comments on this?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/primer/2004-11-17.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/

Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:03 UTC