Re: [Recipes] new editors' draft (proposed solution to ISSUE-193)

Tom,

Apologizes for the late response, please read my comments below:

El 21/04/2009, a las 18:40, Thomas Baker escribió:

> 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 sentence was added in March 2008 in response to Ian's comment. I  
believe it was suggested by Ralph, see the minutes of 11 March 2008  
[2] and Jon's message [3].

>> 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.

 From my point of view, I would prefer to avoid the use of "SKOS  
ontology" to specifically refer to the RDF expression. In my opinion,  
the SKOS ontology is a resource that has two representations (HTML and  
RDF).

Sorry again for the delay in the reply. Best,

> Tom
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.html


[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-swd-minutes.html#item04
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Mar/0041.html


--
Diego Berrueta
R&D Department  -  CTIC Foundation
E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org
Phone: +34 984 29 12 12
Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain
www.fundacionctic.org

Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 09:50:57 UTC