[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/#secdocumentation
[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 Thursday, 29 September 2005 15:09:43 UTC