ISSUE-154

Last Call Comment: Formality in SKOS Reference

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SKOS

Raised by:

Sean Bechhofer

Opened on:

2008-10-02

Description:

From Peter Patel-Schneider [1]:

I would much prefer to have more formality in this reference document.
I feel that it is important to have at least those parts of the SKOS
model that fit into RDF or OWL be prominently mentioned.  It is true
that there is a RDF/XML document that has the OWL 1 portion of SKOS, but
this is only mentioned at the very end of the reference document.  I
feel that it would be much better to mention this RDF/XML document at
the beginning of the reference document.  I also note that the reference
document mentions an outdated version of the RDF/XML document.

From Peter Patel-Schneider [2]:

The OWL WG generally likes the SKOS Reference document.

However, it is the opinion of the WG that there should be more formality
in this reference document.  It would be best to have those parts of the
SKOS model that fit into RDF or OWL be prominently mentioned throughout
the reference document and, moreover, that the RDF/XML document that has
the OWL 1 portion of SKOS be mentioned at the beginning of the reference
document.  At this late stage, however, the OWL WG would be satisfied
with only the second half of this change.

The OWL WG notes that the reference document mentions an outdated
version of the RDF/XML document and expects that this will be fixed.

The OWL WG notes that the RDF/XML document is *not* normative with
respect to the SKOS vocabulary even if it is located at the "root" of
the SKOS vocabulary.  The OWL WG suggests that reference document
indicate that the RDF/XML document is a normative subset of the SKOS
specification.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0018.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0059.html

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-154: Formality in SKOS Reference (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-10-02)
2. Re: personal LC comments on SKOS reference document (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
3. ISSUE-154 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
4. Re: ISSUE-154 draft response (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
5. Re: ISSUE-154 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-06)
6. Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-06)
7. Re: ISSUE-154 draft response (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-07)
8. Proposed resolution to No Change Issues (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
9. Proposed Resolution to Editorial Change issues (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-21)
10. Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-154] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-22)
11. Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-154] (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-11-03)
12. Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-154] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-12-05)
13. Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-154] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-12-05)
14. Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-154] (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-12-08)

Related notes: