Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-154]

I would be minimally satisfied if the RDF/XML document that embodies the
OWL portion of the SKOS semantics were to have comments (or SKOS
comments) in it that referred back to the semantic sections of the SKOS
document, as in

<!-- S1  	skos:Concept is an instance of owl:Class.  -->
<owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#Concept">
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Concept</rdfs:label>
  <skos:changeNote>
    <rdf:Description>
      <rdf:value>Initial description.</rdf:value>
      <dc:creator>Sean Bechhofer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-xx</dc:date>
    </rdf:Description>
  </skos:changeNote>
  <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos"/>
  <skos:definition xml:lang="en">An abstract idea or notion; a unit of thought.</skos:definition>
  <dct:issued>2008-05-xx</dct:issued>
</owl:Class>

An accounting of whether the entire SKOS semantics of the S# is captured
would also be needed.

peter




**********************************************
Dear Peter

Thank you for your comments [1,2,ISSUE-154]:

"I would much prefer to have more formality in this reference document.
I feel that it is important to have at least those parts of the SKOS
model that fit into RDF or OWL be prominently mentioned.  It is true
that there is a RDF/XML document that has the OWL 1 portion of SKOS, but
this is only mentioned at the very end of the reference document.  I
feel that it would be much better to mention this RDF/XML document at
the beginning of the reference document.  I also note that the reference
document mentions an outdated version of the RDF/XML document."

"The OWL WG generally likes the SKOS Reference document.

However, it is the opinion of the WG that there should be more formality
in this reference document.  It would be best to have those parts of the
SKOS model that fit into RDF or OWL be prominently mentioned throughout
the reference document and, moreover, that the RDF/XML document that has
the OWL 1 portion of SKOS be mentioned at the beginning of the reference
document.  At this late stage, however, the OWL WG would be satisfied
with only the second half of this change.

The OWL WG notes that the reference document mentions an outdated
version of the RDF/XML document and expects that this will be fixed.

The OWL WG notes that the RDF/XML document is *not* normative with
respect to the SKOS vocabulary even if it is located at the "root" of
the SKOS vocabulary.  The OWL WG suggests that reference document
indicate that the RDF/XML document is a normative subset of the SKOS
specification."

-------------------------------------------------------------

The outdated reference was an oversight that has now been rectified.  
A pointer to the RDF schema has been added to the introduction to the  
document, along with an explicit statement that the RDF/XML document  
is a normative subset of the specification.

The Working Group propose to close this issue. We hope that these  
changes will be satisfactory.

Cheers,

	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-154] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/154
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0018.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0059.html

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer

Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 20:26:26 UTC