- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:12:18 +0100
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
This change done, logged at: http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/000140.html Cheers, Al. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ > (Alistair) > Sent: 29 September 2005 16:10 > To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Mark van Assem > (E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail) > Subject: [PORT] SKOS Core 2nd review: notes-2 > > > > Re: change proposal notes-2 [1] > > N.B. this proposal requires the following changes to the SKOS > Core RDF/OWL description: > > remove statements > { > skos:definition rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote. > skos:example rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote. > skos:scopeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote. > skos:historyNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:publicNote. > skos:changeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:privateNote. > skos:editorialNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:privateNote. > } > > add statements > { > skos:publicNote a owl:DeprecatedProperty; > dct:isReplacedBy skos:note. > > skos:privateNote a owl:DeprecatedProperty; > dct:isReplacedBy skos:note. > > skos:note a rdf:Property; > rdfs:label 'note'@en; > skos:definition 'A general note, for any purpose.'@en; > rdfs:comment 'This property may be used directly, or as a > super-property for more specific note types.'@en; > skos:example > <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/examples/note.rdf.xml>; > rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core>; > vs:term_status 'unstable'; > dct:issued '2005-09-29'; > dct:replaces skos:privateNote; > dct:replaces skos:publicNote; > . > > skos:definition rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note. > skos:example rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note. > skos:scopeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note. > skos:historyNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note. > skos:changeNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note. > skos:editorialNote rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note. > } > > N.B. this proposal also requires redrafting of the section > 'Documentation Properties' from the SKOS Core Guide [2]. > > Mark [3] hasn't raised any objections to this change, > although he has noted that the question of audience and > function overlapping possibly arises for the properties > skos:historyNote, skos:changeNote and skos:editorialNote. > Discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of the current review. > > Ralph [4] hasn't raised any objections to this change. Some > responses to his comments below: > > > Rationale is clear. Do you intend to add examples to the > > specification, > > similar to that in [6]? I expect this will be a FAQ. (You > did write > > in a followup to that thread that you would add those > examples, though > > the change proposal doesn't make that clear.) Perhaps that > is what is > > meant by the sub-proposal to add dcterms:audience example. > I suspect > > that it would be wise to circulate that example to the mailing list > > for comment. > > I intended to draft a section of prose for the SKOS Core > Guide asap and circulate for comment. > > > I observe that there is useful clarifying material in the thread > > about the semantics of editorialNote [7]. I found Stella's > > citation in [8] informative. (The [BS8723] reference [9] in the > > SKOS Core Guide does not give a non-practitioner enough information > > to locate this document without the aid of, e.g. Google. I doubt, > > for example, that many readers would know to what organization "BSI" > > refers. Please expand that reference some more.) > > I'll try to incorporate Stella's clarifying material into the > new prose for the guide. Also I'll expand the BSI reference. > > > I worry a bit about the vocabulary management side effects of making > > such a change to the property hierarchy, but I observe that > > implementors > > were given notice that this area could change as both publicNote and > > privateNote have status [10] 'unstable' in the 10 May specification. > > Of necessity, that status should be understood to propagate to > > subProperties so I think implementers have been given appropriate > > caution. > > I'm not sure what to say about this. I think the notion of > assigning 'stability' to a class or prop is a reasonable > solution for the short term, but issues such as you raise > have not been worked out. Interesting to discuss further, > but beyond the scope of the current review (something for VM :). > > Cheers, > > Al. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/review-2#notes-2 > [2] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#se cdocumentation > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0000.html > [4] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Sep/0007.html > [6] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Jul/0000.html > [7] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0000.html > [8] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0007.html > [9] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#refBS8723 > [10] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20050510/#secChange > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ > > (Alistair) > > Sent: 29 September 2005 14:50 > > To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Mark van Assem > > (E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail) > > Subject: [PORT] Status of SKOS Core 2nd review > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm going to start wrapping up the second review, taking it > > proposal by proposal so the emails don't get too long. > > > > Thanks again to both reviewers for all their hard work. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 11:12:52 UTC