- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:42:35 +0200
- To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
Hi Alistair, I still don't get it: we say that skos:notation works with typed literal, as in [1] > This property is used to assign a notation to a concept as a typed > literal [RDF-CONCEPTS > <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#ref-RDF-CONCEPTS>]. But in fact for the most common case (a concept having one notation), skos:notation would be used with plain literals? I'm really not convinced by what we are going to propose here... By the way cc Norman Gray, as this conflicts a bit with what I've previously written to him in [2]. Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#notations [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0060.html > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 09:43:15AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There is something I don't understand here: if we do not need to use >> custom user-defined datatypes when one needs only one notation, what >> should be used in that case then? No datatype? >> > > A plain literal with no language tag, I guess... > > <foo> skos:notation "bar" . > > Al. > > >> Antoine >> >> >>> Hi Guus, >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 04:03:19PM +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote: >>> >>> >>>> NOTATIONS >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> The OWL WG notes that one portion of SKOS (Notations) uses custom >>>> datatypes. Although these seem to be benign, because RDF and OWL allow >>>> extra datatypes, the use of these datatypes is not likely to be >>>> supported by many tools. The presence of extra datatypes may cause >>>> difficulties in some tools, which may just reject SKOS documents that >>>> have these datatypes. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> Sean already pointed out that we can indicate in the document that >>>> user-defined datatypes are only explicitly needed when one needs >>>> multiple notations (so only in Sec. ). In addition I would like to >>>> add the tools should not reject SKOS documents containing >>>> user-defined datatypes, see the OWL reference section on datatype >>>> reasoning [2], in particular the last sentence: >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> Unrecognized datatypes should be treated in the same way as >>>> unsupported datatypes. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> >>> This approach seems sound to me. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Alistair. >>> >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 16:44:03 UTC