Re: [PORT] skos planning

Hi Alistair,

Would it be a good idea to also record issues for which we have not or 
cannot define a "change proposal" currently? I.e. introduce a separate 
"issues" list? This makes it clear where there still is work to do 
and/or consensus to reach, while still allowing us to go forward with 
stuff that we do have time for within the lifetime of the WG.

One such issue is the Term-as-label vs. Term-as-class issue [e.g. 
1,2,3,4], which in my view is not a closed issue. At the very minimum 
the Guide or other document should explain (somewhere in the future) 
the design rationale for the (non-)existence of a Term-class and what 
the consequences are for the (in)ability to express information that 
occurs in more complex thesaurus-like vocabularies such as MeSH and 
WordNet, or in multilingual thesauri [3]. To me this is an important 
part of defining SKOS's scope.

Another thing is the issue raised by you concerning quality assurance 
[5]; this is not a change proposal as we have been using them until 
now (it doesn't define a change to the SKOS Core), it is more the 
"flagging of an issue" like you already suggest in [5].

Cheers,
Mark.

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Nov/0011.html
[2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Nov/0005.html
[3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Nov/0007.html
[4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Nov/0000.html

[5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Dec/0011

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 18:11:29 UTC