W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: [SKOS] "SKOS RDF schema"

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:54:32 +0200
To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Alistair Miles <alimanfoo@googlemail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090515085432.GA4176@octavius>
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:24:53PM +0100, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> Couple of issues I still see:
> A/ The handling of XL is slightly inconsistent. I've added an XL HTML  
> variant [5] (which was present in earlier versions, but has been  
> edited to fit the model described above). There is no corresponding  
> table in Reference though. How do we handle the discussion of the XL  
> namespace documents? Again, it seems a little inconsistent to have an  
> Appendix discussing this for SKOS and a section of an appendix  
> describing it for XL.
> But I'm not *that* bothered at this point....
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/skos.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/skos.rdf
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/skos-dl.rdf
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/skos-xl.html

I agree that the handling of XL seems slightly inconsistent and I
also agree this is not a show-stopper either way.  

That said, some comments and suggestions:

-- Why not put the nice HTML table of XL classes and properties 
   from [5] into Appendix A.  This would add just one page to SKOS
   Reference but enhances its value as a one-stop reference.
   That way, SKOS Reference would redundantly replicate property
   tables -- both in SKOS Namespace Document HTML Variant [2] /
   Appendix B and in SKOS XL Namespace HTML Variant [5] /
   Appendix A, but at least its approach to redundant
   replication would be consistent :-)

   Since the document says it is the normative specification of
   SKOS, and Appendix A says that XL is an optional extension,
   we are in effect saying that Appendix A is the normative
   specification of an optional extension, so I see no reason
   why the property tables could not be replicated from
   the standpoint of status.

-- The question of where to put the pointers to XL namespace
   documents is slightly awkward because it is already slightly
   awkward that XL is specified in an appendix. 
   Instead of putting that information at the end of Appendix A, why 
   not rename

        Appendix C. SKOS Namespace Documents


        Appendix C. SKOS and XL Namespace Documents

   That way, the namespace documents are all handled together
   and after the introductory text about namespace documents.

-- Appendix D is currently called "SKOS Namespaces".  However, coming
   after Appendix C "SKOS Namespace Documents", this heading seems 
   vague and even potentially confusing.  For clarity, why not call it:

        Appendix D. SKOS Namespace: a historical note

-- Appendix B is currently called "SKOS Overview", but the title seems
   a bit misleading because it does not actually provide an overview of 
   SKOS in a general sense -- it just documents the properties and classes.
   I suggest:

        Appendix B. SKOS Properties and Classes
-- If one accepts all the changes above, one ends up with:

        Appendix A. SKOS eXtension for Labels (XL)
        Appendix B. SKOS Properties and Classes
        Appendix C. SKOS and XL Namespace Documents
        Appendix D. SKOS Namespace: a historical note

   I think it would be slightly clearer, however, if the 
   order of A and B were switched:

        Appendix A. SKOS Properties and Classes
        Appendix B. SKOS eXtension for Labels (XL)
        Appendix C. SKOS and XL Namespace Documents
        Appendix D. SKOS Namespace: a historical note

   That way, the _non-optional_ SKOS properties and classes are
   presented before the _optional_ XL properties and classes.
   This order (SKOS first, followed by SKOS XL) is then mirrored
   in Appendix C (SKOS and XL Namespace Documents).

-- A small branding issue: Currently, SKOS Reference refers 
   to SKOS-XL simply as "XL" or "SKOS+XL" (in the context of
   A.3.4.2.  Labeling Integrity).  Informally, we have been
   referring to it as "SKOS-XL" (see change section).  Do we
   want to promote a consistent way to refer to SKOS XL?
   Currently, SKOS Reference implies that people should refer to
   it simply as "XL".  I would prefer that we change these
   references "XL" into "SKOS-XL", "SKOS+XL", or "SKOS XL" in
   [1], [5], and in the RDF schema for SKOS-XL.  For example:

        Appendix B. SKOS eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)
        Appendix C. SKOS and SKOS-XL Namespace Documents
   As a counterargument to my suggestion, I see a slight potential
   for confusion as to whether "SKOS-XL" means "SKOS plus XL" or 
   just the "XL extension to SKOS".  Having noted the issue, I am
   happy to drop this suggestion if others are happy with continuing
   to call it just "XL".

-- I note that in [2], some "[CITE]" references still need to be
   filled in.

-- In Appendix C, links to the documents needed to be added in C.1,
   C.2, and C.3.  In C.2, a clickable link could also be
   added to the words "by citing its URI".


Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 08:55:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:56 UTC