W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2008

ISSUE-153 draft response

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:10:58 +0000
Message-Id: <631185B6-C5E9-4057-9683-9AF0E9F366C5@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Here's a draft response to Tim on [ISSUE-153].
Let me know what you think. Note *this is just a draft, not the  
actual response* -- I'll wait for feedback from the WG before  
replying formally.


Dear Tim,

thanks for your comment [1]:

Reading http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/ ,

I sympathize very much with the people who want to keep the namespace
the same.
   We're trying to get critical mass and cutting some of the data off
and letting it float away by itself it is costly. I don't generate
skos myself, but I have come across it.

Some people think it's important. I strongly suggest giving new names
(within the same namespace)  to the five things which have changed,
especially if they're rather obscure.

You have of course to evaluate the damage if you were to just make an
erratum to skos 2005.

Did you in 2005 make a say about the change rules for skos 2005
I suggest to use new names and not change the namespace.


This was an issue that has been debated at length in the WG (see for  
example [2,3]) and the WG have seen merit in both options. The Last  
Call Draft proposes a new namespace. Recent discussions [4] have seen  
the WG return to a position where the SKOS vocabulary would be  
defined using the existing namespace URI.

We do not intend to change the property names of the key semantic  
relations skos:broader and skos:narrower, as it was felt that this  
would effectively negate any benefit from retaining the namespace.  
This will, however, result in a change to the semantics of these  
relationships. However, as highlighted in [5], in principle  
applications should be able to make use of the machine-readable  
published schema. There may be impact on previously published  
vocabularies, which users will need to be made aware of. Note also  
that "old" vocabulary (for example skos:subject) will no longer be  
defined in the skos namespace. Historical versions of the schema  
will, however still be made available (although not at the SKOS  
namespace URI).

Our proposal is thus to revert to the original SKOS namespace URI,  
and to add an appendix to the reference document (see [6]) discussing  
the issues above.

Are you happy with this solution?


	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-153] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/153
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0084.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0032.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfSchema
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#item05
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/#app-namespace

Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:22:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:54 UTC