ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (was: Comments on SKOS Reference)

Hi Tom,

> In my recollection, we decided in Amsterdam to use prose in 
> order to avoid putting formulations such as
> 
>     For any resource x, all members of the set { y | <x,y>
>     is in IEXT(I(skos:prefLabel)) } are RDF plain literals
>     and no two members of this set share the same language tag.
> 
> into the body of the spec -- i.e., for constraints that 
> cannot be expressed as triples.  
> 
> I'm wondering if we really gain readability by rendering the 
> triples themselves as prose. Will there be many readers who 
> _do_ understand "has type Class" but do _not_ understand 
> "rdf:type owl:Class" (or simply read it as "rdf:type 
> rdfs:Class")?  Is it possible, on the other hand, that an 
> inexpert reader could get confused by formulations such as 
> "The Domain and Range of...", not realizing it is a shorthand 
> for "The Domain of..." and "The Range of..."?

Yes, I share your concern. I've raised an issue to record this [2] -- I'm happy to be issue owner and to work up some alternatives for a particular section, so the group can make a choice. In the mean time, all suggestions are of course welcome.

Thanks,

Alistair.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/67

> 
> My preference would be to see the components of the model, 
> whenever possible, in triples, and that Appendix C be 
> reserved for other types of formalisms (such as the above).
> In order to improve readability for readers who are not used 
> to reading triples, the triples could perhaps be restated as 
> prose -- but then they could be worded in ways that are 
> unconstrained by the need to make the mapping obvious, e.g., 
> "skos:ConceptScheme is an instance of the class owl:Class".
> 
> I suggest that everyone take the time now to give this key 
> new draft a careful read.
> 
> All the best in the New Year,
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20071223
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> W3C Semantic Web 
> Deployment Working Group http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 15:09:13 UTC