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

[SKOS] About Closing ISSUE-36 ConceptSchemeContainment

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:35:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4784F7CC.2030502@few.vu.nl>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:52 UTC