RE: [SKOS] SKOS-XL & label relations

Hi Guus,

> 2. Was the assumption that XL would not be part of the Reference (and
> therefore not of the official Rec)? I think it should, as label
> relations feature so prominently in our use cases. But maybe I missed
> other good reasons.

My assumption was, the XL draft could be published as a separate WG Note (or
WD?), once we've finished the SKOS Reference, if we have time. 

I think the main problem with including XL in the SKOS Reference is
maturity. Nobody has seen XL except for the WG, and introducing a brand new
feature set like this without trying it out in some data makes me uneasy,
especially this late in the process.

My main reason in writing XL was simply to prove that this set of features
*could in principle* be supported in an extension to SKOS.
Accordingly, I would like the WG to focus on the question of whether or not
to remove the current support for label relations from the SKOS Reference
(section 8), given that this feature *could* be supported by an extension
(which is more comprehensive and offers some alternatives). I would rather
not spend too much time on the detail of XL itself, until we've decided on
the scope of the Reference.

Cheers,

Alistair. 

> 
> 
> Guus
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabel
> s/ProposalThree
> 
> 
> > From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:14:00 +0100
> > To: "'SWD WG'" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
> > Message-ID: <005101c89e4a$8ea2c6a0$abe853e0$@miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Considering Antoine's comments at [1], it seems there are three
> alternate
> > patterns for representing relations between lexical entities. Here, I
> call
> > these three patterns "n-ary literal relations", "binary (XL) label
> > relations" and "n-ary (XL) label relations". Currently, the SKOS
> Reference
> > provides support for the first, my original "XL" sketch [2] supported
> the
> > third, and nothing supported the second.
> >
> > Given the amount of implementation experience, it is difficult to
> make any
> > judgments about which of these three patterns is "best". Most likely,
> each
> > pattern will be suited to different situations, and there may be a
> need for
> > all three. I had a chat with Sean about this this morning, and he
> felt the
> > same way.
> >
> > So I can see two options open to the WG.
> >
> > OPTION 1 - Move all support for relations between lexical entitites
> *out* of
> > the SKOS Reference. (If time, publish a note illustrating three
> alternative
> > patterns with some vocabulary.)
> >
> > OPTION 2 - Leave the current SKOS Reference features in place. (If
> time,
> > publish a note illustrating the two remaining patterns with some
> > vocabulary.)
> >
> > I had originally favoured option 2, however I am beginning to see
> that to
> > favour any one pattern by placing it in the SKOS Reference does not
> > accurately reflect the state of standardisation and consensus.
> >
> > If we chose option 1, we could then consider publishing a note on the
> three
> > design patterns. For illustration, I've sketched the outline of such
> a note
> > at:
> >
> > [3] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/xl/20080414>
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Alistair.
> >
> > [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-
> wg/2008Apr/0041.html>
> > [2] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/SKOS-XL>
> 
> 
> [1]
> [2]



--
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 08:27:36 UTC