Re: ISSUE-184: Last Call Comment: Notation and prefLabel overlap

Hi everyone,

I'm about to write a draft answer for the comment of Michael below. But 
before I'd like to mention that the answer to his point 1 depends on the 
final outcome of discussion in [1,2]

In fact for the moment the answer I'd make to his first point (shortly 
"use skos:prefLabel for notations as plain literals, use skos:notation 
for notations as typed literals") might not correspond to the WG 
position wrt skos:notation. The latter being completely unclear, as the 
Reference and Primer do not seem to follow positions that were expressed 
in mails from Guus, Alistair and Sean.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0154.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0167.html

> ISSUE-184: Last Call Comment: Notation and prefLabel overlap
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/184
>
> Raised by: Sean Bechhofer
> On product: SKOS
>
> Raised by Michael Panzer [1]:
>
>
> 4. skos:notation and skos:prefLabel are overlapping
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> There are two issues here: 1, Most notation in classification schemes is
> preferred (i.e., standard) notation. Should both skos:notation and
> skos:prefLabel be used for all these cases?
>
> 2, On some occasions an alternative (i.e., optional) notation is given
> for a concept. For example, inScheme CCT:
>         [Q89] environmental biology
>             Preferred class: X17
>
> Regardless whether it is preferred or alternative, the notation always
> represents a unique concept and therefore has semantic relationships.
> Hence, an alternative notation is not a non-preferred thesaurus label,
> which has only lexical relationships.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0061.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 08:56:43 UTC