Re: [SKOS] SKOS Primer's status - proposal to move it forward

Hi Margherita,

OK, I don't know if this is very regular process, but you can have a 
look at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
> pant pant... I am more or less half way. Here my comments for now:
>  
> Comments to the SKOS Primer v.11/02/2008 (SKOSPrimer-080211.html)
> - Section 1.1 About this Primer: in this sections and other I still see the
> use of N3 notion. I think this will be changed to Turtle syntax, right?
>   

True! Reference is now changed.

> - Section: 2.2.4 Use of Labels Outside of SKOS: here we say "These labels are
> compatible because foaf:name is a sub-property of rdfs:label." Why there is
> the need to say this sentence? why not then considering also "foaf:nick" used
> in the example?
>   

Is it clearer if I remove the foaf:nick statement, which is indeed 
useless from the example?

> - 2.3 Semantic Relationships: the name of the semantic relationships is not
> changes yet in this version. Will then be changed after only if we approve
> the corresponding issue?
>   

Yes.

> - 2.3.2 Associative Relationships: I know we already discussed it ... but
> seems strange that "skos:related is not defined as a generally transitive
> property"... are we sure about it? if so, can we provide an example as done
> for the other case (transitivity of BT wheels - vehicles).
>   
There could be an issue here. But this also concerns the Reference doc, 
in which this non-transitivity is specified. Are you OK if for the 
moment I add
[[
@@TODO: write an example@@
]]

Antoine
>  
> will continue and join the conference in 15 minutes.
>  
> bye
>
>  -----Original Message----- 
>  From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
>  Sent: Mon 11/02/2008 12:58 
>  To: SWD WG; Sini, Margherita (KCEW); Quentin Reul 
>  Cc: 
>  Subject: Re: [SKOS] SKOS Primer's status - proposal to move it
> forward
>  
>  
>
>  Dear all,
>  
>  As we discussed last week, none of the 4 issues mentioned in the mail
>  below should be considered as blocking for the Primer, cf [1]:
>  
>  >    Antoine: over past week, we tried to address comments from
> people
>  > [...see http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-minutes.html for
> discussion...]
>  >
>  >    guus: with this input, don't let this block publication of the
>  >    working draft
>  
>  Further, the document has been checked by Ed wrt. conformance of
> examples
>  wrt Turtle language.
>  
>  I would therefore propose to move forward the Primer, and to publish
> the
>  February 11 Editor's draft of the Primer as a working draft [2].
>  This of course requires explicit endorsement of the two reviewers who
>  kindly accepted to comment on the previous version.
>  Margherita and Quentin, will you be at the next teleconference? Do
> you
>  support this publication?
>  
>  Best, regards,
>  
>  Antoine
>  
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-minutes.html
>  [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
>  
>  
>  >
>  > Dear all,
>  >
>  > As a preparation for tomorrow's telecon, here is an update
> regarding
>  > the Primer's status.
>  >
>  > There is a last version (Feb 5) available at
>  > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
>  >
>  > This answers comments from Quentin [1] and Margherita [2], as well
> as
>  > their follow-ups [3,4]. Track of our answers are [5,6,7,8,9]
>  > This version also takes into account a remark by Sean [10],
> answered
>  > in [11].
>  > Finally, the new version tries to take into account the input Guus
>  > sent on links between OWL classes and SKOS concepts [12]
>  >
>  > The points that I feel now could prevent us from releasing the
> Primer
>  > very soon are:
>  > 1. there could be content issues, as I've noticed in [13], for OWL
>  > classes and SKOS concepts.
>  > 2. there are still a number of TODOs related to our finding
> solutions
>  > on open and raised ISSUEs.
>  > 3. there is a pending request for homogeneizing the examples, that
> is,
>  > picking them from a same topic and concept scheme.
>  > 4. there is a pending request on representing examples with
> figures,
>  > and not N3 code snippets.
>  >
>  > I feel only 3 and 4 are important for a decision to release the
>  > Primer, as 1 and 2 could be out of reach (the Reference faces the
> same
>  > ISSUEs, after all).
>  > Ed and I are working on these 3 and 4, but this is clearly
> something
>  > that will require some time. I would welcome advice from the WG on
> this.
>  >
>  > Best,
>  >
>  > Antoine and Ed
>  >
>  > [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0078.html
>  > [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html
>  > [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0175.html
>  > [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0003.html
>  > [5]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0173.html
>  > [6]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0183.html
>  > [7]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0217.html
>  > [8]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0171.html
>  > [9]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0008.html
>  > [10]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0207.html
>  > [11]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0216.html
>  > [12]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0198.html
>  > [13]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0009.html
>  >
>  >
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 16:11:40 UTC