Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-147]

Hi, Sean:

We can live with the disposition in any event; that said, if there's
ambiguity about whether it's best to model notations as datatypes or as
schemes, would it be consistent with the policy elsewhere to remove the
current definition of notations and leave notations to a future revision
that incorporates the investigation of the community as to which approach
is appropriate?


Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com


Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk> wrote on 11/18/2008
10:50:10 AM:
>
> Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-147]
> Sean Bechhofer
>
> to:
>
> Erik Hennum, SWD Working SWD
>
> 11/18/2008 10:49 AM
>
>
> Dear Erik,
>
> thanks for your comments [1,ISSUE-147]:
>
> """
> While it should certainly be possible to specify a datatype for a
> notation,
> relying on the datatype to identify the classification scheme and thus
> effectively requiring the datatype seems complex and a barrier to
> adoption.
>
> Would it be possible to use a distinct skos:ConceptScheme instead of a
> datatype to identify each notational classification scheme?  enumerating
> the notations with skos:Concepts?  Mapping properties could then
> associate
> the concepts from the notational classification scheme with concepts
> in the
> scheme that's the focus of interest.  The datatype could then be
> optional
> and used for validation of value format (as is commonly expected for XML
> Schema datatypes).
>
> The cost would be some indirection, but that could be mitigated by
> minting
> URI identifiers for notational concepts in which the final step is a
> recognizable variant on the notation for the concept.  The benefit
> would be
> consistency, simplicity, and a public, reusable SKOS definition of each
> notational classification scheme.
> """
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The design pattern that you propose is consistent with the SKOS data
> model
> and could be used to address the issue of notations.
>
> We welcome discussion of such patterns within the SKOS community, but
> at this
> point propose to make no changes to the current document.
>
> Are you able to live with this?.