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

RE: [SKOS] SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 18 January 2008

From: Reul, Q. H. <q.reul@abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:40:37 -0000
Message-ID: <2AD2401FC36E784094D0B3375FDA6CE802ACF9DD@VMAIL2.uoa.abdn.ac.uk>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Vit Novacek" <vit.novacek@deri.org>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


I have had a look through it and all the point seem to have been
addressed. Hence, I support the publication of this document.



-----Original Message-----
From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] 
Sent: 18 January 2008 16:24
To: Reul, Q. H.
Cc: Vit Novacek; public-swd-wg@w3.org
Subject: [SKOS] SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 18 January 2008

Dear Quentin,

A new Editors' Draft of the SKOS Reference is available at:

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080118>

Please could you indicate as soon as possible whether you support the
publication of this document as a public working draft, or whether any
further changes are required.

The points raised in your review have been addressed in [1] as follows.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reul, Q. H. [mailto:q.reul@abdn.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 07 January 2008 13:41
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair); Vit Novacek; public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [SKOS] SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 23 December 2007
> Dear Alistair,
> I have read the SKOS Reference and have a few comments. I 
> find a very interesting document and nicely explained. 
> However, I have a few comments.
> Firstly, you should be replaced "neither" with "neither" 
> throughout the document. Furthermore, in paragraph 5 in 
> section 1.2 it should be "inappropriate" rather than 
> "innappropriate". 

Done (document has been spell-checked for US English).

> In section 1 paragraph 2, you describe different types of 
> existing classification schemes/thesauri. I think it would be 
> appropriate to have an example as part of the document.

To help move forward quickly with this document, a placeholder has been
included in section 1 for such an example. (Hopefully some members of
the WG representing vocabulary providers could discuss and select an
appropriate example for a subsequent working draft.)

> In section 2, you list all the SKOS vocabulary. I think it 
> would be a good idea to organise them in the different 
> categories (i.e. lexical labels, documentation, etc.) and add 
> a URL to all of them to directly access the description in 
> the document.

Links have been added in column 2. Hopefully the categorisation should
be clear.

> In the remaining section, I'm not quite sure what @@X stands 
> for.

These stand for numbering which is yet to be done. An editors' note has
been added in the status section to explain this.

> In section 7.6.5, the document refers to skos:broader as 
> not being transitive but is this similar to discussion in [1].  

Section 7 now reflects the proposed resolution of ISSUE-44 as stated in
[2]. The notes should now also be consistent with the formal

> I find confusing to use skos:exactMatch to describe two 
> conceptual resources that are sufficiently similar for 
> information retrieval (section 10.6.7).

Section 10 has a number of editorial notes, explaining the current
situation, and with links to new issues in the SWD issue tracker which
should provide enough focus for discussion on the possible semantics of
concept mapping properties after publication as a Working Draft. 

Kind regards,


[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0090.html

> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 16:41:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:47 UTC