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

RE: ISSUE-64: TextualDescriptionsForConcepts

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D03B3F1EF@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

I've added a new section to the SKOS Reference wiki draft:

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference/Documentation>

This section defines the formal semantics of the SKOS documentation (note) properties.

I've written this section to be faithfully the same as the previous specifications given in the SKOS Core Guide [2] -- I.e. this is just what we had before.

I've also raised an issue (see below) asking whether we should revisit the design of these properties. Documentation (note) properties are an important part of SKOS, so I suggest we make this a high priority issue.

I'd also like to talk about multimedia content in documentation properties, but I'll put that in a separate issue.

Cheers,

Al.


[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secdocumentation>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of SWD Issue Tracker
> Sent: 20 November 2007 13:15
> To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-64: TextualDescriptionsForConcepts
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-64: TextualDescriptionsForConcepts
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/64
> 
> Raised by: Alistair Miles
> On product: SKOS
> 
> SKOS currently has 7 "documentation"/"note" properties: 
> skos:note, skos:scopeNote, skos:defition, skos:historyNote, 
> skos:editorialNote, skos:changeNote, skos:example.
> 
> In the SKOS Core Guide
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102>, 
> 3 different design patterns are allowed for these properties 
> -- "documentation as an RDF literal", "documentation as a 
> related resource description", and "documentation as a 
> document reference". 
> 
> Do we continue to allow these different design patterns? If 
> we do, we have to accept a complex range for these 
> properties. Is that OK? How should we formally specify that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 13:36:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:51 UTC