- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:34:33 +0200
- To: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, I'm looking at [1], also known as [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos This document calls itself "SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System RDF Schema". One obvious problem is that the document is clearly an HTML page and not an RDF schema. It may seem obvious to us that it is really _about_ the RDF schema, but I can well imagine this causing some confusion. In the section of that document labeled "SKOS RDF Schema", then, there is a link labeled "SKOS RDF Schema" which points to [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core which however -- since I am reading it in a browser -- content-negotiates back to [1]! However, the section does provide an additional link directly to the schema itself ("download the RDF schema without content negotiation") [4]. [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core.rdf Given the title and introduction, then, the reader does not necessarily expect to find the _contents_ of the RDF schema by scrolling down one screen. I find this all delightfully confusing... :-) Some issues and suggestions for discussion: -- Maybe call the Web document [1-2] "Contents of the RDF schema for Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS)" or "Expressing SKOS in RDF" - in effect, anything but "SKOS RDF schema" :-) -- There should be a link labeled "SKOS RDF schema", but it should link to [4] directly, not via content negotiation from [3]. The surrounding text, however, should describe the content negotiation mechanism clearly. -- Status of the document [1-2]: I'm not sure we have properly resolved this question. I think it would help the reader if this document describes itself as a readable ready-reference page which excerpts the contents of the RDF schema for SKOS, and that the RDF schema for SKOS is itself a formalisation of a subset of the semantic conditions described in SKOS Reference, and that the SKOS Reference has the status of W3C [Candidate] Recommendation. Like the OWL ontology [5], the RDF schema for SKOS does not assert any status for itself, though in the case of OWL, the contents of the schema are replicated in an appendix to the Recommendation document [6], arguably conferring on the schema itself a status of Recommendation, assuming it merely replicates the text in the appendix. [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appB This text provides an opportunity to clarify that the SKOS Reference is the [Candidate] Recommendation and that [1], [2], and [4] are all excerpts of that Recommendation. (The text should point out that it is not possible to express all of the statements of the SKOS data model as RDF triples and thus the schema forms a "normative subset" of the specification.) -- I'm wondering if this document [1-2] might be a good place to introduce and link any DL versions of SKOS as per Sean's discussion in [7]. The document could briefly explain the need to have a DL ontology in some contexts, describe the algorithm by which some of the axioms in [4] are "thrown away" (or filtered out). In a way, the DL schema is arguably just another subset of the semantic conditions described SKOS Reference, albeit a deliberately lossy one. Grouping points to the RDF, HTML, and DL excerpts together in one document would be helpful; and where else to do that but in this document [1-2]? (This assumes we want to publish, or indeed say anything at all about, a DL version - also an issue for discussion.) [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0071.html -- The HTML representation [1-2] should include labels. -- If scripts were used to extract [1-2] from SKOS Reference and to generate the DL version, it might be useful to point to those scripts or include them in an appendix. -- Instead of replicating this construct separately for the XL namespace [8], maybe SKOS and SKOS-XL could be usefully combined into one document "Expressions of SKOS Reference in RDF" (since SKOS Reference defines both the SKOS and XL namespaces). Such a title would make clear that it derives from SKOS Reference without implying that the document is itself an RDF schema. [8] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/skos-xl.html If the document [1-2] were to do all of the above, might we not want to formally approve it as a Working Group Note? That would remove any confusion or ambiguity as to its status. I hesitate because I'm not sure now under what circumstances a reader would normally click on or be redirected to this document and whether, in those contexts, the reader might find it confusing to encounter something with the status of Note. Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 17:35:19 UTC