[SKOS] About Closing ISSUE-36 ConceptSchemeContainment

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?



[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