- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:00:53 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- CC: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tom, Reacting on some of your points. Thanks for checking, btw! I had warned that I was hoping for feedback on many of these aspects... >> Note I have *not* modified the DL version of the SKOS schema at [5]. > > I'm not clear on the intended status of the DL schema. Where is > it linked from, if at all? That's unclear to me as well. I think I discovered it by using the Protégé SKOS plug-in, which was using it at a time... > Note that (most of) Dublin Core properties in > the dct: (http://purl.org/dc/terms/) namespace > have formal ranges, whereas for properties in dc: > (http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/), range remains unspecified. > > In particular, dct:contributor and dct:creator have the > non-literal range dct:Agent [1], so one would expect the object > to have a foaf:name or rdf:value. Makes sense. > Hmm - I had always assumed that the upper/lowercase > convention applied only to the "names" of properties and > classes -- the bits that are concatenated with the base > URI of the namespace to form a URI for the property or > class. It never occurred to me that this convention might > extend as well to the human-readable labels, e.g. from > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/diff-skos.txt: > > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Concept</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">is in scheme</rdfs:label> > > I should think we would want the labels all to be consistently > in uppercase or in lowercase (I'd vote for upper). I also did not know about that neither, but Alistair mentioned it as a deciison criteria when he created the first labels. I searched in existing ontology engineering guidelines, and found nothing conclusive about the natural language labels. So in the end I took the decision of lower case for the properties as there are some verbs/article in them. But if you prefer homogenizing everything I will follow. (even though my feeling would have been to homogenize in the lower-case direction ;-) > Hmm. To take two examples, foaf:name is defined as "A name for > something" and dct:title is defined as "A name given to the > resource -- they are defined in terms of their range, not in > terms of what they do, e.g.: "Relates a resource to a name given > to the resource". I see arguments both ways but think we should > pause to consider whether we want to adopt, in effect, a new > style for definitions. > Note that for the datatype properties (or things that I could intuitively categorize as data properties, even if they are not formally defined as such, such as the various kind of skos:note) I kept to a wording similar to the one of dct:title and foaf:name, as I felt there was much less confusion possible. I changed the object properties as I felt they were more confusing. But again, this is a matter of personal feeling, for the moment. Antoine
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 11:01:32 UTC