W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

[SKOS] SKOS standard vs extensions

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:26:27 +0200
Message-ID: <467E8D23.8030700@few.vu.nl>
To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
CC: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Margherita,

I'm reacting to the second part of your mail in a different thread.

> Recently I also discovered that in SKOS I can represent 3 different BTs: the
> real BT (is-a), the instance-of and the part-of. This is also very good. We
> are now trying to represent this differences in AGROVOC so that we can than
> export data in this new version of SKOS.
Are you refering to the SKOS extensions vocabulary. Be careful, I think 
this was just an editor's draft, therefore far from belonging to the 
(future) standard SKOS specification. It might be therefore be risky to 
use. So if you create e.g. skos:broaderInstantive statements in your 
vocabulary, you should perhaps make sure that there is also a 
skos:broader statement in case the first is not in any final standard 

Any people from the SWD having some advice on this? I think we might go 
into trouble if we have unofficial SKOS extensions hanging around, with 
people starting to use it. This actually is quite close to Kjetil having 
perhaps used skos:it in his tagging environment application [2].



[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions/spec/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0143.html
> Thanks
> Margherita Sini
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 15:27:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC