Re: [SKOS] notations, label and their range (was Re: some thoughts about the OWL WG comments)

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 
>>>>> <>].
>>>> 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 
>>> <>].
>>> ]]
>>> 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] 

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!


Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 09:08:34 UTC