RE: [PORT] skos planning

Hi Mark,

What I'm suggesting re planning for SKOS is that we focus on developing the SKOS Core proposals list [1], in its current form, up to Jan 31 2006, which is the scheduled end of the current WG charter.  If at Jan 31 2006, or sometime before then, we find out that the WG is getting a 2 month extension, then we can talk about scheduling a 3rd review, and at that time pick those items from the list that have good consensus for consideration at that review, in the same way we did for previuos reviews.  Whatever items remain open on the proposals list at the end of the current WG charter become input to the next WG charter.

I.e. the inputs to the next WG are: the latest WD of the SKOS Core Guide and the SKOS Core Vocab Spec, and "open" items from the SKOS Core Proposals list.

Cheers,

Al.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals














[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#secChange

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark van Assem [mailto:mark@cs.vu.nl]
> Sent: 12 December 2005 14:46
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [PORT] quality assurance and integrity testing for skos
> data
> 
> 
> Hi Alistair,
> 
> This comes back to the same thing I posted a few days ago [1]:
> maybe different categories of issues are in order because this is not 
> a change proposal.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Dec/0002
> 
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > 
> >>Hi Alistair,
> >>
> >>I agree, but what kind of proposal do you mean? A proposal 
> to include 
> >>some text on quality assurance in the Guide?
> > 
> > 
> > Well, I'd just like to add an item to the proposals list 
> that says something along the lines of: we think quality 
> assurance is important, and furthermore we can't capture all 
> of the intended semantics of SKOS Core using RDF+OWL, so we 
> think this should be adressed at some point, possibly with a 
> test framework similar to that published at [1].
> > 
> > I.e. we're flagging up the issue, we're not sure exactly 
> what to do about it, let's get some feedback.
> > 
> > I think it's a bit early to suggest that e.g. [1] become an 
> appendix to the SKOS Core Guide, as the schemarama idea needs 
> more air, plus SPARQL isn't solid yet either.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Al.
> > 
> > [1] 
> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts
> /integrity.html
> > 
> > 
> >>CHeers,
> >>Mark.
> >>
> >>Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>I've tidied up some work I did a little while ago on 
> >>
> >>quality assurance and 'integrity testing' for SKOS data using 
> >>SPARQL queries.  I've written this up at:
> >>
> >>>
> >>http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts
> >>/integrity.html
> >>
> >>>I think quality assurance is an important issue, and I'd 
> >>
> >>like to acknowledge that by adding an item to the SKOS Core 
> >>proposals list. Any objections to that?  
> >>
> >>>I've also implemented a test server, so you can try out the 
> >>
> >>test cases on your SKOS data, see:
> >>
> >>>http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>Al.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>---
> >>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
> >>        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>

Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 15:24:29 UTC