RE: [SKOS] Proposal Form (was: RE: AW: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: RelationshipBetweenLabels)

<http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ProposalForm?action=recal
l&rev=15>

Sorry, trying to sort out problems with line breaks in email breaking up
URLs.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 21 March 2007 11:15
> To: SWD WG
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: [SKOS] Proposal Form (was: RE: AW: [SKOS] Proposed 
> Resolution for ISSUE 26: RelationshipBetweenLabels)
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've thought a bit more about making proposals for SKOS, and 
> I've written up the following:
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ProposalForm?ac
> tion=recal
> l&rev=15>
> 
> I'd like to offer this as a suggested format for structuring 
> proposals.
> It's the same as what I suggested below, except for the 
> addition of a section to describe syntactic constraints and a 
> section for discussion.
> 
> I'm basically trying to ensure that proposals contain all the 
> information that would be required by a normative 
> specification of SKOS.
> This should enable us to directly and precisely compare 
> alternative proposals. This would also mean that, once a 
> proposal is accepted, it can simply be added directly to a 
> draft of the normative specification, because all the 
> necessary information is already present.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alistair.
> 
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ
> > (Alistair)
> > Sent: 19 March 2007 17:14
> > To: SWD WG
> > Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: AW: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: 
> > RelationshipBetweenLabels
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I'd like to suggest a structure for making proposals. The structure 
> > should help us avoid arguing at cross-purposes, by forcing 
> us to make 
> > our assumptions explicit. It should also help us to investigate in 
> > detail the possible consequences of any specific proposal 
> for software 
> > applications, enabling us to make a highly informed decision.
> > 
> > One of the points I'd like to make about the argument between the 
> > various design patterns laid out in [6] is that there are in fact 
> > *many possible proposals* within each design pattern, each of which 
> > may have *radically different semantics*. It only really 
> makes sense 
> > to argue for or against a *specific proposal* for which all the 
> > details are given as illustrated below.
> > 
> > (Using Guus' original proposal [1] as an example...)
> > 
> > First, give the vocabulary of the proposal, e.g.:
> > 
> > skos:LabelRelation skos:labelRelationSubject 
> skos:labelRelationObject
> > 
> > Second, give axiomatic triples using RDF and RDFS 
> vocabularies, e.g.:
> > 
> > skos:labelRelationSubject rdfs:domain skos:LabelRelation.
> > skos:labelRelationSubject rdfs:range rdfs:Literal.
> > skos:labelRelationObject rdfs:domain skos:LabelRelation.
> > skos:labelRelationObject rdfs:range rdfs:Literal.
> > 
> > Third, give any further semantic conditions on the 
> interpretation of 
> > the vocabulary, that cannot be expressed as axiomatic triples. 
> > Semantic conditions should be given formally, following the 
> style used 
> > in *yellow
> > tables* in [2] (see e.g. the yellow table at [3]). E.g.:
> > 
> > (None required for Guus' original proposal [1].)
> > 
> > Fourth, give examples of consistent usage. E.g.:
> > 
> > --- Begin Turtle ---
> > 
> > @prefix ex: <http://www.example.com/example#>.
> > # skos: rdfs: rdf: conventional namespace prefixes
> > 
> > # first extend proposed vocabulary
> > 
> > ex:AbbreviationRelation rdfs:subClassOf skos:LabelRelation.
> > 
> > # now apply extended vocab
> > 
> > ex:A a skos:Concept;
> >   skos:prefLabel "Corporation"@en;
> >   skos:altLabel "Corp."@en.
> > 
> > [] a ex:AbbreviationRelation;
> >   skos:labelRelationSubject "Corporation"@en;
> >   skos:labelRelationObject "Corp."@en.
> > 
> > --- End Turtle ---
> > 
> > Fifth, give examples of inconsistent usage, e.g.:
> > 
> > (None possible for Guus' original proposal [1].)
> > 
> > Sixth, give any additional entailment rules which follow from the 
> > semantic conditions specified above, following the style 
> used in [5].
> > E.g.:
> > 
> > (None for Guus' original proposal [1].)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Alistair.
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0181
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rdfs_interp
> > [4] http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/
> > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rules
> > [6]
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
> > weenLabels
> > 
> > --
> > Alistair Miles
> > Research Associate
> > CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi 
> > Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom
> > Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> > Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> > Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> > > Sent: 01 March 2007 18:16
> > > To: Guus Schreiber
> > > Cc: Jon Phipps; Daniel Rubin; SWD WG
> > > Subject: Re: AW: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: 
> > > RelationshipBetweenLabels
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Guus,
> > > 
> > > This is seducing from a modelling point of view. However,
> > wouldn't it
> > > give a(nother) fatal blow to the OWL-DL compatibility?
> > > In such a setting, prefLabel could be used to point at 
> resources or 
> > > literals, and would violate the constraint disjointness between 
> > > datatype and object properties.
> > > 
> > > Unless we live happily with that, and decide to make a
> > choice for an
> > > OWL-DL compatible version of SKOS. But this raises again
> > the issue of
> > > having several versions of SKOS...
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Antoine
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jon Phipps wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Antoine,
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I had an amendment of this third proposal in mind. Instead
> > > of having
> > > > two properties skos:prefTerm and skos:prefLabel, I would
> > suggest to
> > > > have just the current one, skos:prefLabel, and removing 
> the range 
> > > > restriction (rdfs:literal). So, this means that if one
> > > queries for the
> > > > the skos:prefLabel of a concept, one either gets a literal or a 
> > > > resource with a label equal to this literal. This prevents
> > > the use of
> > > > construction rules and keeps the SKOS vocabulary 
> simple. The only 
> > > > extension to the current SKOS vocabulary would a a class
> > skos:Term.
> > > >
> > > > In retrospect, skos:prefTerm might have been a better name than 
> > > > skos:prefLabel, but I propose to stick with the 
> original name for 
> > > > backward-compatibility reasons.
> > > >
> > > > Guus
> > > >
> > > > PS The same holds of course for skos:altLabel.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> And just to tie in last week's discussion that resulted in
> > > that page
> > > >> [1], here's a link to the last message in that thread...
> > > >> 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0167.html
> > > >>
> > > >> --Jon
> > > >>
> > > >> On 3/1/07, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Just a small question.
> > > >>> Is this alternative solution you are discussing similar
> > > to the third
> > > >>> solution I had put in [1]?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Antoine
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1]
> > > >>> 
> > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
> > > weenLabels
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:31:39 UTC