- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:36:15 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:53:07AM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote: > *Labeling:* > I know that we already discussed that, and we have to live with the legacy > URI local names, despite the fact that I personally find them horrible :-) > But are we forced to use the same (lack of) policy for the natural language > rdfs:labels? > I don't really understand why the rdfs:label of hasTopConcept is "has top > concept" while the rdfs:label of inScheme is not "is in scheme"! Or why the > natural language rdfs:label of OrderedCollection is "Ordered Collection" > with upper case O and C whereas "broadMatch" has a label "broad match" with > only lower case. > These are minor comments, but maybe one days these labels will be used in > some application. And as I have not checked this aspect very much in this > review, I'd like to draw your attention on this... Dear all, The labels the legacy SKOS vocabulary and in the latest schemas [1] and [2] (see full list below) label classes in uppercase and properties in lowercase. RDF and OWL schemas use names for labels (e.g., Nothing, equivalentClass, disjointWith, ObjectProperty). FOAF uses uppercase for classes and lowercase for properties unless the properties contain uppercase acronyms (e.g., Person, geekcode, based near, ICQ chat ID). DC uses uppercase for everything (Alternative Title, Is Part Of, Policy). I'd be interested to hear how important it is (or not) to promote a particular approach, but since the SKOS schema will have an impact on consolidating notions of good practice through emulation and, as Antoine points out, the labels may find their way into implementations and displays, it is perhaps worth pausing to reflect. I can live with the mixed-case, natural-language approach (with exceptions involving uppercase acronyms), though I wonder if this could encourage some users to mistakenly infer that the case of labels is somehow significant in an application context. As for the labels themselves, they look fine except for "has broader transitive" (and the other transitives) which should perhaps read "has broader transitive _concept_". Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.rdf [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos-xl.rdf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Labels in http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.rdf: Collection Concept Scheme Concept Ordered Collection alternative label change note definition editorial note example has broader concept has broader match has broader transitive has close match has exact match has member list has member has narrower concept has narrower match has narrower transitive has related concept has related match has top concept hidden label history note is in mapping relation with is in scheme is in semantic relation with is top concept in scheme notation note preferred label scope note Labels in http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos-xl.rdf: Label alternative label hidden label label relation literal form preferred label -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 14:37:02 UTC