- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:07:00 +0200
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
Hi Sean, > > >> Hi, >>>> 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... >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> Are you not convinced because we haven't stated it clearly enough? >>> Or not convinced by the notion that skos:notation might be used with >>> a plain literal? >> >> I am not convinced because: >> First I am not aware this was ever stated, actually. To me until >> Guus' mail, skos:notation was to be used only with typed literals, >> and if people wanted to use plain literals they would use private use >> language sub-tags [BCP47] with skos:prefLabel. If I read [1] that's >> really the feeling I have. And I worded the SKOS Primer to promote >> this practice [2]. >> >> Second, even though I recognize the interest of having one property >> for all notations (plain or typed literal) I'm not much in favor of >> this. For implementors it might make things more difficult, to >> anticipate both usages. >> >>> The suggestion is that we temper the original wording: >>> >>> [[ >>> 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>]. >>> ]] >>> >>> which states that typed literals are used for skos:notation (but >>> note that there are no semantic conditions, so this would just be >>> convention anyway). >> >> I guess there was a typo in your new wording, which is the same as >> the old one. Even if I usually trust your arguments I won't buy such >> one ;-) > > Antoine, Norman > > Alistair and I have talked briefly about this. As Guus says, the OWL > spec [1] requires that applications treat unrecognised datatypes the > same as unsupported datatypes, which essentially means treating > lexically identical items as equivalent. My guess is that this will > actually be appropriate behaviour for the majority of notations. > > Norman seems happy with the notion of adding the datatype to the > notation, although with the caveat that he didn't want to make things > any more complicated that providing a datatype URI. Our proposal is > now to revert to the original wording (e.g. skos:notation is used with > typed literals), and possibly include a reference to [1] in the text. > > Would you be happy with this? > > Sean > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#DatatypeSupport If this proposal is compatible with the message "use skos:prefLabel for notations as plain literals, use skos:notation for notations as typed literals", then I'm happy to support it! Antoine
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 09:08:34 UTC