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

[PORT] SKOS Core 2nd Review: symbolicLabelsRange-3

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:41:14 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0ACD95@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi Ralph,

> --
> [11]symbolicLabelsRange-3
>   refactor symbolic labelling properties and change range
>   to DCMI type Image.
> The semantics of altSymbol and prefSymbol feel under-specified to me.
> I cannot, for example, decide whether the use case would be adequately
> (or perhaps better) handled through additional to UNICODE such that
> the desired symbol(s) can be conveyed as text.  It is not clear
> whether symbols used as "preferred symbolic labels" should have
> glyph-like semantics.  The BLISS example and reference would
> support such a presumption.  I suggest there exists here an
> opportunity to add clarity.

What do you mean by 'glyph-like semantics'?

The original idea was just to allow folks to 'label' their concepts with images (that have GET-able representations as jpeg/gif/png/svg/blah), where the image depicts a symbolic representation of the concept, for the purpose of creating graphical representations in web documents etc.  

Do you have any suggestions for how we can add clarity?

> I appreciate the utility of moving the grounding from FOAF to DCMI
> but the comment that raised this issue noted that there were other
> FOAF dependencies.  I wonder why the remaining one (subjectIndicator)
> is not being addressed?

To be honest, I'd forgotten that the range of skos:subjectIndicator is foaf:Document.  I'd be happy to discuss this for the next review.

> Any objection based on the semantics of DCMI:Image are apparently
> made moot by the stated intention [12] to modify the FOAF
> specification.  Clearly, if FOAF:Image becomes a subclass of
> DCMI:Image the net result is the same for applications.

I don't think this is true.  Just because FOAF has made the foaf:Image class a sub-class of dcmitype:Image, what guarantees do I have as an implementer that this won't change?  

I can understand implementers currently preferring a dependency on DCMI, where all changes however minor have to go through the Usage Board and public comment periods, to a dependency on FOAF, where the reality is that Danbri can and does tweak on short notice.  



>    [11] 
   [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Jun/0057.html
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 14:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:13 UTC