Re: Comments on Vocabularies document, v 1.15 (was [Fwd: Vocabularies document RFC period])

Antoine, hello.

On 2008 Sep 30, at 18:59, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> This mail to say that I have found this document very interesting.  
> Great job! It's actually very valueable for us involved in SKOS to  
> see how this technology can trigger such interesting developments.

Many thanks for these very valuable comments.

> - this section is a very nice introduction to SKOS. I was wondering  
> whether it could be useful to refer as a complement to the SKOS  
> Primer Ed and me have tried to put together, which has a similar aim  
> of guiding newcomers (though with more details than what you do in  
> 2.2).

An excellent idea.  I've done that.

> - is the sentence that introduce the features list about "a SKOS  
> concept" rather than "a SKOS vocabulary"?

Ermmm, yes.  I've reworded that appropriately.

> - in the list of features, "definition" and "scope note" are not  
> said to be explicitly optional . Is that intended?

Nope.  More rewordings.

> - I think your proposed example for notations is not compliant with  
> what the SKOS Reference and Primer say about these [1,2].  
> skos:notation should be used with literals with a specific datatype,  
> as in
> ex:udc512 skos:prefLabel "Algebra" ;
> skos:notation "512"^^ex:myUDCNotationDatatype .
> (and yes, it is not a very simple representation. Which is why we  
> left the "private use tags with skos:prefLabel" option available...)

Ah, we hadn't spotted that.  Given that a vocabulary and its notations  
are defined in a PDF document http://foo/bar.pdf (which is distinct  
from the current document), I suppose I can refer to this as follows:

   skos:notation "1.2.3"^^<#notation> .
   dc:description "The notation is defined in the document http://foo/bar.pdf 
" .

Would that be correct?  It appears to be consistent with the text in  
SKOS Reference section 6.5.

In this context, I can see little benefit in creating an XSchema  
datatype, and requiring something like that would increase the  
complication of the Recommendation we're writing.

Thanks again for the comments.  Best wishes,


Norman Gray  :
Dept Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester

Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 13:13:22 UTC