Re: [SKOS] Re: Comments on SKOS Primer

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:17:10PM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >   Using N3 presupposes that the audience for the Primer is
> >   more fluent in RDF than I had assumed.  My preference
> >   would be for the Primer to use visual graphs as in the
> >   2005 SKOS Core Guide [6].  I am assuming that graphs make
> >   it easier for readers who are new to RDF to see how things
> >   fit together.  In addition to the graphs, the 2005 guide
> >   also uses RDF/XML.  For the new Primer, my preference would
> >   be to keep using N3, though I wonder if all of these N3
> >   examples could be moved into an Appendix, shortening the
> >   body of the Primer (a good thing!).
> 
> That was more-or-less the initial plan to have graphs, and I have asked 
> Alistair the sources for his graphs. However, due to lack of time I 
> decided to drop them for the moment. Also, Ed remarked that this had the 
> nice effect of reducing the length of the document (graphs usually takes 
> more space), while keeping generally readable.
> I would propose to have a small test and do as you propose, but for a 
> later version of the draft. What was true during the holidays remains 
> true now :-(

For now, we should perhaps just decide in principle whether
graphs should be used.  My concern is whether using N3 _only_
will be readable for the intended audience.

> >      In Advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be _mapped_
> >      to conceptual resources in other schemes and _grouped_
> >      into labeled or ordered collections.  _Labels of concepts
> >      can be related_ to each other.
> 
> I will try to implement it in the version to review these days. But I 
> don't guarantee that it will be ideal regarding the second part of your 
> text. It does not fit the current structure of the Primer as well as it 
> does for the reference :-( Unless we put "Advanced" SKOS in the title of 
> both the "Networking" section and the "when KOS are not simple anymore" 
> one. But I don't really like it: to me networking KOSs (re-using Concept 
> Schemes, mapping, subject indexing) is less advanced and will be more 
> common than things like grouping into collections and relationships 
> between labels.

That's a good point.  I saw the Essential/Advanced distinction
and liked it but have no strong opinion on where to draw the
line.  My point is more that if we do distinguish "advanced"
features, we should do so consistently and try to make it
part of the high-level story.

Tom

-- 
Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de - baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 20:43:02 UTC