- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:35:45 +0200
- To: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Dear Hans, Thanks for reacting on our document. Your mail had slipped away from my pile, I feel deeply sorry for this, as this kind of feedback is important. > > I suggest to include ISO 11179 as a use case. > Granted, it is a very bureaucratic thing, but if you can cover this > standard, you can cover most other use cases. This point was also mentioned in our working group, hence our having introduced compatibility with ISO-11179 Part 3: Registry metamodel and basic attributes [2] Our general approach was to gather in the use cases part some applications of SKOS, and not general languages we should be compatible with. The latter kind of requirement is indeed supposed to be derived from concrete application scenario. We would therefore need an application of SKOS that would also be interested in ISO-11179... So can you live with us keeping the status of ISO-11179-Part3 compatibility on our agenda as a (candidate) requirement as in [2]? If not: - would you want it to be given a higher status, by linking it to a use case? - do you think we should check for other part of ISO-11179 as well? Best regards, Antoine > As an exception the 6 (!) parts of this standard are available from > the Internet [1] > > Regards, > Hans > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11179 > <blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11179> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#R-CompatibilityWithISO11179
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 08:35:54 UTC