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

Antoine Isaac wrote:
> 
> 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?

I think ading a range constraint should be fine, as we're not 
really changing the design, only making it more precise. Can you 
make a concrete proposal for the range constraint you'd like to 
add to Ref? We would have to weigh carefully whether it does not 
break some use cases, however.

Guus

> 
> 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
>>
>>   
> 
>