Re: [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer - other points

Tom,

>>> For example, a SKOS publisher can choose to locally extend an existing 
>>> concept scheme. In that case, the set of new concepts can just be published 
>>> alone, linking to the concepts in the already existing scheme rather than 
>>> re-defining them.
>>> ]]
>>> @@TODO@@
>> That's much better but could perhaps be further improved; I'll 
>> think about it too.
> 
> Do you want to say:
> 
>     For example, a SKOS publisher can choose to locally extend
>     an existing concept scheme by declaring any new concepts
>     that may be needed and simply linking to concepts that
>     have already been defined in the existing scheme.

Yes. But at some point elegance and simplicity might harm the pedogical aim of the Primer ;-) I'll therefore copy that in the document, but emphasizing "linking", as this is the key point we want to make.


> 
[...]
> 
> I suggest:
> 
>       <p>By convention, mapping properties are used to represent
>       links that have the same intended meaning as the "standard"
>       semantic properties, but with a different scope. One might
>       say that mapping relationships are less <em>inherent</em>
>       to the meaning of the concepts they involve. From the point
>       of view of the original designer of a mapped KOS, they might
>       even sometimes be wrong.</p>
>       
>       <p>Mapping properties are expected to be useful
>       in <em>specific</em> applications that use multiple,
>       conceptually overlapping KOSs.  By convention, mapping
>       relationships are expected to be asserted between concepts
>       that belong to different concept schemes.  However, the use of
>       mapping properties might also be appropriate in cases where
>       someone other than its owner needs to enrich the semantic
>       relationships within a particular concept scheme.</p>
>       
>       <p>The reader should be aware that according to the SKOS
>       data model, the mapping properties that "mirror" a given
>       semantic relation property are also sub-properties of it in
>       the RDFS sense. For instance, <code>skos:broadMatch</code> is a
>       sub-property of <code>skos:broader</code>.  Consequently, every
>       assertion of <code>skos:broadMatch</code> between two concepts
>       leads by inference to asserting a <code>skos:broader</code>
>       between these concepts.</p> <hr>
> 
> In other words:
> 
> -- Suggest dropping the final sentence in the last paragraph, 
>    which I understand but do not know why it needs to be said
>    (and therefore find confusing).  I do not at any rate think
>    it is needed here as a transition sentence.

Yes. In fact it made more sense when the subsections were in a different order, as a conclusion of the section.

> -- Suggest dropping the one-sentence second paragraph, as the 
>    preceding sentence ("conceptually overlapping") already makes
>    the point.

Agreed.

> 
> In addition, I suggest:
> 
> 995c995
> < <code>ex2:eggSellerScheme</code> using the mapping assertions below:</p>
> ---
>> <code>ex2:eggSellerScheme</code> by using the mapping assertions below:</p>
> 
> It is not the _concept_ that is using the mapping assertion, as a sleepy
> reader might at first conclude.

Yes.

> 
> 1001,1002c1001,1002
> < sufficiently similar that they can be used interchangeably in applications
> < that consider the two concept schemes they belong to. However,
> ---
>> sufficiently similar that they can be used interchangeably in applications.
>> However,
> 
> Here, the deleted words seem redundant.

Agreed.

Antoine

Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 19:02:17 UTC