W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

[PORT] SKOS Core spec and guide (was RE: A problem RE: Dereferencing SKOS Core)

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:44:53 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DC0C@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

I have a proposal re the SKOS Core spec and the guide to sort out the problem of W3C publication.  I propose that we add an appendix to the guide (called 'Term Summary Tables' or something), which is the term summary tables as they currently appear in the spec.  Then we change hypertext links in the prose in the guide that currently link to the spec, and instead link them to the appendix.  The guide would then only ever refer to itself, and we wouldn't need to publish the spec as a W3C working draft at all.  This would also then allow us to publish the guide without requiring that the 'policy statements' go through review just yet (these are still the only @@TODO for the spec, and need to be thought about more).

How does that sound?

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Nowack [mailto:bnowack@appmosphere.com]
> Sent: 22 March 2005 08:30
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A problem RE: Dereferencing SKOS Core 
> 
> 
> On 21.03.2005 19:17:38, Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >
> >I have a suggestion: we make the resource 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core
> >content negotiable.  If a client asks for 'text/html' then 
> the resource serves
> >up some html that carries the title 'SKOS Core Vocabulary 
> Namespace Document'.
> >If the client asks for 'application/rdf+xml' then they get 
> what they currently
> >get, which some RDF/XML.  
> I'm not sure. I'd try to avoid (directly) serving two different
> representations at a single URI. AFAIK this type of URI overloading
> is still considered bad practice (VM TF again?). maybe using a linked
> stylesheet to provide an htmly view in a browser could be an option to
> only have a single document at that URI. Or redirecting to another
> URI, based on the accept headers sent, but I'm not sure if there's a
> recommendation how to implement the latter option already..
> 
> regards,
> benjamin
> 
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> 
> Kruppstr. 100
> 45145 Essen, Germany
> http://www.bnode.org/
> 
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Al.
> >
> >[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-03-11  
> >
> >
> >---
> >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 Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC