- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:21:53 +0100
- To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
- CC: Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Jon, > >> I would add that we will have to sort out the other types of >> requirements, that is the ones that do not concern only the >> representation constructs offered by SKOS. They are quite diverse, some >> of them only vague design goals that we might not keep in the end... > > > The OWL Requirements doc that we're using as a somewhat loose exemplar > contains a "Goals" section [1], in addition to a "Use Cases" section, > that is referenced by quite a few of the requirements: > > "Design goals describe general motivations for the language that do > not necessarily result from any single use case. Along with the Use > Cases, these motivate the Requirements and Objectives in Sections 4 > and 5. In this section, we describe eight design goals for the web > ontology language..." > > It might be useful to try to identify some of the design goals of SKOS > and its support for common patterns of thesaural representation, > independent of actual use cases, in order to provide a foundation for > additional requirements not raised by the use cases. +1 > > Does some version of a list of design goals for SKOS already exist, or > might this be a good topic for further discussion at the F2F. Perhaps some of the vague requirements in [2], e.g. "R8. Vocabulary interoperability" or "R10. Extendability of SKOS model", fall in this category. There is actually a "ontology interoperability" goal in [1] Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-goals [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/CandidateReqList
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 14:22:03 UTC