Re: ISSUE-151: Last Call Comment: skos:member definition

Would a range statement be considered as too big a change for the spec?
I would live very comfortably with a range axiom for skos:member, as the 
naming of the property is very ambiguous. And we don't think it will be 
used with other kind of objects, do we?

Antoine

> Here is a draft response to Erik on ISSUE-151, comments welcome.
>
> --- begin draft message ---
>
> Dear Erik,
>
> Thank you for your helpful comments. In response to the comment below:
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:03PM +0000, SWD Issue Tracker wrote:
>   
>> ISSUE-151: Last Call Comment: skos:member definition 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/151
>>
>> Raised by:  Everyone
>> On product: All
>>
>> Raised by Erik Hennum in [1]:
>>
>> """
>> Should the specification define skos:member as having a range of
>> skos:Concept or skos:Collection? Should skos:member have an inverse
>> skos:isMemberOf property?
>> """
>>     
>
> We have not encountered any requirements to specify the range of
> skos:member. We propose to make no change to the current draft,
> leaving the range unspecified, allowing greater flexibility in the use
> of the SKOS collections framework, for example with third party
> extensions. Can you live with this?
>
> Similarly we have not encountered a requirement for an inverse of
> skos:member. We propose to make no change, can you live with this?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alistair
> Sean
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
>
>

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2008 10:26:13 UTC