- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:39:44 +0100
- To: "Reul, Q. H." <q.reul@abdn.ac.uk>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi, You're not making it easier :-D But we could also imagine some vicious mind that figures out that if a concept "skos:note"s a literal, it is some kind of annotation for it, and not the other way round. It would become an interpretation even easier to make if we allow the range of skos:note to include for instance foaf:document. Whatever happens, I think what is really important here is that we adopt a coherent strategy: as mentioned in [1] we've currently got a mixture of different conventions used for SKOS properties: consider "inScheme" "broader" "hasTopConcept"... Cheers, Antoine [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0100.html > Hi, > > >From my point of view, I would rather use skos:hasNarrower rather than > skos:hasNarrowerConcept and the same for broader properties and related > one. The formal semantic of the properties should make it the domain and > range of the property clear rather than its name. > > Contrary to Margherita [1], I believe that the documentation properties > (i.e. skos:note, etc.) are self explanatory through their formal > semantic. > > Regards, > > Quentin > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of SWD Issue Tracker > Sent: 22 January 2008 15:02 > To: public-swd-wg@w3.org > Subject: ISSUE-82: PropertyNames > > > > ISSUE-82: PropertyNames > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/82 > > Raised by: Antoine Isaac > On product: SKOS > > >> From >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html > or http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0075.html > or http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0089.html > > ======= > For all relationships as already mentioned I suggest to make > them more clear by adding the verb. For example: > - skos:hasNarrowerConcept > - skos:hasBroaderConcept > - skos:hasRelatedConcept > ======= > > The current SKOS specification uses the URI skos:broader, skos:narrower, > skos:related. Should these be changed? > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 15:40:05 UTC