- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:01:46 +0200
- To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Sounds ok to me! Antoine > Hi all, > > Here's a draft response to Michael on ISSUE-140, comment welcome. > > --- begin draft message --- > > Dear Michael, > > Many thanks for your detailed and helpful comments. With regard to > your comments below: > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:45:42AM +0000, SWD Issue Tracker wrote: > >> ISSUE-140: Last Call Comment: notations >> >> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/140 >> >> Raised by: Alistair Miles >> On product: SKOS >> >> Raised by Michael Schneider in [1]: >> >> """ >> This comment is certainly too late, now that the document is in Last Call. But >> let me at least state that it confuses me to have both skos:note and >> skos:notation, and they have such a different meaning! Also, I never heard >> somebody calling the thing discussed here a "notation". I call it a "key", and >> "skos:key" sounds pretty good, IMHO. >> > > We agree that skos:notation and skos:note sound similar and > potentially confusing. However, "notation" is a widely used term in > the knowledge organisation field, especially with classification > schemes, and hence "skos:notation" was chosen to be intuitive to this > community. We propose to make no change, can you live with the current > names? > > >> I don't see a discussion why there is no rdfs:domain given for notations. Are >> notations intended to be used with every resource, or only with skos:ConceptS? >> In any case, something should be said. >> """ >> > > We propose to make an editorial change to the SKOS Reference, adding a > note in section 6 explaining that no domain is stated for > skos:notation. Would this be acceptable? > > Kind regards, > > Alistair > Sean > > >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2008 18:30:29 UTC