- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:02:25 -0000
- 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 Hierarchies Associative Relationships Thesauri 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 necessary? 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 Core) 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? Al. [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 Chilton Didcot 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