RE: [SKOS] Standalone definitions in natural language; previous links in headers

what about the idea we mention of having more clear name for relationships
such as 

 - skos:hasBroader
 - skos:hasNarrower
 - skos:hasRelated


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Thomas Baker
Sent: 25 March 2008 15:14
To: Alistair Miles
Cc: Thomas Baker;; Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
Subject: [SKOS] Standalone definitions in natural language; previous links in


On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 02:56:54PM +0000, Alistair Miles wrote:
> >>I imagine the directionality is somewhere stated, but in searching
> >>throught the SKOS Reference for several minutes I was unable to find it 
> >>in the obvious places, such as the section on skos:broader:
> >>
> >>or in Section 7 on its semantics:
> >>
> >>or even in the examples:
> >>
> >>
> >>I think a statement needs to be added somewhere, even if it is 
> >>merely in
> >>the example, saying something like:
> >>[[
> >>        :a skos:broader :b .
> >>
> >>indicates that :b is a broader concept than :a.
> >>]]

> >I assume the entries in Section 13 of SKOS Reference [1] will need to 
> >show Definitions, as in the 2005 spec [2] (and, as in 200, perhaps a 
> >clickable index of Classes and Properties in the upper right corner).
> I had no intention to add definitions to these tables. I think the
> sections of the main body of the document itself serve perfectly well as 
> definitions, there is no need to create standalone definitions for each 
> class or property.
> I'm reluctant to work on separate definitions because agreeing on 
> short
> standalone definitions can be very hard, and could take time we don't 
> necessarily have to spend.

I see that the RDF vocabularies [8,9] use natural-language definitions but
the OWL vocabulary [10] does not.

In the case of SKOS, not using natural-language definitions would mean not
creating definitions for new properties, such as skos:seeLabelRelation, but
it would also mean throwing out definitions used in the 2005 specification

Definitions would provide a ready-reference answer to David's original
question (see above), who wanted to know what is broader than what with

I know from experience with Dublin Core how much work it can
be to agree on short standalone definitions but wonder if it
is a good idea simply to dispense with them, and whether it sets the right
precedent for other such vocabularies, especially given the broad audience
that SKOS is intended to reach.

> >David's observation makes me notice that the current SKOS Reference 
> >[3] lacks a Previous version: link.  As the Latest
> >Version: link of the older SWBP draft [4] now redirects to [3], need 
> >there not be an unbroken chain of Previous version: links from [5] to 
> >[6]?  (Or is it the link from [4] to [3] that is in error?)
> There is a note about superseding the older draft (with a link) in the
> SOTD section.

Other Working Drafts, such as RDFa Syntax [7], have Previous version: links
in the headers.  Previous version: links are used in the example page [12] I
generated using the pubrules filter [11] - maybe Ralph can say if these links
are actually required?


> >[1]
> >[2] 
> >
> >[3]
> >[4]
> >[5]
> >[6]


Tom Baker - -

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 15:01:22 UTC