Re: [SKOS] SKOS Reference Editors' Draft 18 January 2008

Dear Alistair,

Thanks for the update! That's really nice to know what has changed 
beyond what reviewers asked.
As a token of goodwill I have (quickly) read the parts mentioned below :-)

>
>  * There is some new content in appendix B (rules of thumb). Sean has questioned whether this section is appropriately named, or should be moved to the primer, or if indeed it is necessary at all, and this is stated in an editorial comment at the top of the appendix. 
>   

I'm more than ready to put these in the primer, if their size is 
restricted to the current one. Actually "14.2. Don't Duplicate Labels" 
is already there in section [2], even if we can make the rule more 
explicit than what it is now.

>  * Sub-section 4.6.2. now also discusses the interaction between skos:inScheme and owl:imports, and illustrates an entailment which does not hold.
>   

This content is nicely put, explaining in a more formal way what is also in the 
Primer ([2] section 3.1)

>  * Sub-section 4.6.4. is new, and discusses the interaction between skos:hasTopConcept and skos:broader.
>   

Honnestly I don't really what you describe (a concept having a broader 
concept while being defined as a top concept of the concept scheme it is 
a member of) as often happening.
And I would not object to have in 4.6.4 a semantic condition stating 
that "no concept which is defined as a top concept of one scheme can be 
given a broader concept in this scheme"
Now, do you have a specific motivation for not enforcing this?

>  * Sub-section 1.6.2. is new, and sets up conventions used in the document for citing URIs.
>   

I don't really favor using relative URIs with an implicit base namespace.

> Relative URIs are cited in the same way, and are relative to the base 
> URI |<http://example.org/ns/>|

The examples are really clearer if you define once and for all an "ex:" 
namespace, and refer to entities it defines by explicitly using its 
abbreviation.
But in any case that's not a formal objection, just a doubt: the 
document reads OK as such.

>  * Section 11 is new, and includes placeholders with editorial notes and links through to dedicated issues for discussing a number of "orphaned" features which were in previous SKOS drafts but haven't yet been considered by the WG.
>   

If the plan is that section is only temporary, then it's OK. I guess all 
its content should be dealt with by the WG and moved to more appropriate 
sections, shouldn't it?

>  * The heading "Semantic Conditions" has been removed from all tables stating formal definitions, as it was deemed unnecessary.
>   

+1

Antoine

[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer

Received on Saturday, 19 January 2008 18:40:14 UTC