- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:06 +0200
- To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- Cc: Diego Berrueta Muñoz <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:59:35PM +0200, Thomas Baker wrote: > Looking back through my notes and comparing with this draft, I was > trying to recall if we had properly addressed the question asked by > Ian Davis in February 2008: > > > It's good to see this document being moved forward and I appreciate all > > the hard work put into it. I'd like to ask for a clarification in > > terminology though. The draft uses the term "vocabulary URI" in many > > places without defining it. I think there's potential for confusion > > between the URI of the vocabulary and the URI of the document describing > > the vocabulary. My sense is that the draft uses the term "vocabulary > > URI" to refer to the URI of the RDF document describing the vocabulary. > > I suggest that is made explicit by using a term like "vocabulary > > document URI" > > As in the previous version, this version still says "throughout > this document, the expression 'vocabulary URI' can be > interpreted as 'vocabulary namespace URI'." > > This seems especially relevant in light of our current > discussion about the SKOS ontologies, which we are referring to > as namespace documents. To clarify: in my reading, the current (and previous) drafts of Recipes do in fact use "vocabulary URI" in a consistent way to denote the "SKOS vocabulary" as opposed to the "HTML content" and "RDF content" served to describe the vocabulary. As the draft says in Appendix B: "The URI that identifies your vocabulary is referred to here as the vocabulary namespace URI or just vocabulary URI (or ontology URI as vocabulary and ontology are used here interchangeably)." However, I note that in recent discussions we have referred to the "SKOS ontology" when referring specifically to the RDF expression, and I wonder whether I'm missing any other points on which there might still be confusion on this issue. I'm slightly uneasy with simple formulations such as "schema available from the SKOS namespace" (from the intermediate page under discussion [1]), though the more precise formulations I can think of would also be wordier. Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.html -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 16:40:53 UTC