- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:35:24 +0100
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hello all, Sorry for opening again a can of worm, but I have some doubts about the process of closing this issue... During last telconf, we agreed on the following resolution for ISSUE-36 ConceptSchemeContainment [1]: > RESOLUTION: skos:inScheme is not deprecated, skos:inScheme is not a > subproperty of rdfs:isDefinedBy. In accordance [3] can be kept, but > adding inScheme in the proposed vocabulary as well as domain and > range > statements for this property. It should also include the following > sentence: "The SKOS Primer also defines best practices for using > skos:inScheme to explicitly state the relationship between a SKOS > conceptual resource and the concept scheme(s) to which it belongs." > > The general idea is "we let the opportunity of using rdfs:isDefinedBy > for some purposes open, but skos:inScheme is clearly what is > needed for > concept scheme membership and we keep it in the SKOS language". > > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0058.html > [3] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1 I would like before closing the issue to make sure that member of the WG are aware of the fact that *this reolution brings only a partial solution to the issue*. As part of the issue reads on [1]: > SKOS relationships such as broader and narrower are represented as triples in > RDF. The fact that a particular broader/narrower relationship between two > concepts belongs to a concept scheme cannot then be represented without > resorting to reification. > > A principled approach to representing this containment would be desirable. > This aspect is not dealt with by the above resolution, which deals only with containment of Concepts. Would this formally prevent us to CLOSE the issue? To CLOSE I feel that we should record somewhere we don't want to tackle with containment of semantic relationships (as well as documentation and label one). I can be OK with this, but I think this solution is actually not what the WG is thinking of. In some of our discussion on Concept Schemes and OWL ontologies (cf action on this [4]) there is still the notion of containment for relations. My feeling is thus that we have to see what happens for [4] before definitively CLOSING ISSUE-36. What do you think? Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36 [4] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 16:36:13 UTC