Re: vocabulary to consider

Hello Guus,

This could indeed be interesting, more business-oriented than the 
traditional examples SKOS were applied to.

However I have a big doubt: when I looke to these files it seems that
- XBRL itself is rather a markup language, so something like a way to 
create data in a structured way. So not really what SKOS is about.
- XBRL refers to 'taxonomies' that define the XML elements specific XBRL 
datasets can use http://www.xbrl.org/Taxonomies/. However, the contents 
of these taxonomies is rather oriented towards the definition of 
domain-specific links and properties, and not domain-specific types of 
entities. And there is no hierarchical information in the XML schema 
advertised there as encoding these taxonomies (at least not according to 
the way I conceive XML Schema can specify hierarchical information 
between element types, that is by restriction or extension of existing 
elements)

So XBRL seems rather oriented towards the creation of metadata schemes 
("what does the structure of a description look like", eventually 
refering to some basic types like integer or string) rather than towards 
the specification of controlled values for these schemes ("which values 
can I put in mydescriptions", for example the values for a'subject' 
field), which was SKOS main business until now.
We can of course decide to change SKOS core orientation, but that will 
need some discussion, including the one needed to unbias me from my 
concern for classifications/thesauri ;-)

Antoine

>
> During the Coordination Group call last Friday Dan Connolly pointed to 
> XBBL as a possible use case for SKOS. See pointers in
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Oct/0010.html
>
> Guus
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 09:25:05 UTC