ISSUE-67

StatingFormalDefinitions

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SKOS
Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
2008-01-08
Description:
In the SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 23 December 2007 [1], the formal class and
property definitions, and the integrity conditions, are stated in the main body
of the document as prose. 

For example, from section 4.3:

 "skos:ConceptScheme has type Class."

 "skos:inScheme, skos:hasTopConcept habe type Object Property."

 "skos:ConceptScheme is Disjoint with skos:Concept."

For example, from section 7.3:

 "The Domain and Range of skos:semanticRelation is skos:Concept."

This style of stating the formal definitions is potentially confusing. To reduce
confusion, should the formal definitions be stated instead using prose in some
other style (e.g. as in the RDFS spec [2])? Or as triples, wherever possible? Or
something else? 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20071223
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (from q.reul@abdn.ac.uk on 2008-01-08)
  2. ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (was: Comments on SKOS Reference) (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2008-01-08)
  3. ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-01-08)
  4. RE: ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (from Margherita.Sini@fao.org on 2008-01-14)
  5. RE: Comments on SKOS Reference (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2008-01-18)
  6. [SKOS] Issues Review [From Alistair] (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-02-17)
  7. [Fwd: [SKOS] Issues Review (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-21)
  8. [SKOS] Issues Review (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-21)
  9. Meeting Record: 2008-02-27 SWD telecon (from ehs@pobox.com on 2008-03-01)
  10. [SKOS] ISSUE-67 StatingFormalDefinitions (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-03-10)
  11. Minutes from 2008-03-18 telecon (from cred@loc.gov on 2008-03-19)
  12. [SKOS] Issue owners - preparation for Washington (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2008-04-15)
  13. Re: [SKOS] Issue owners - preparation for Washington (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-04-21)

Related notes:

2008-01-08: See also mail from Tom Baker: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0000.html

2008-01-15: Better formal specifications for Turtle and N3 were published yesterday: http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/ http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-n3-20080114/ I recommend using those citations for whichever of Turtle or N3 is chosen.

2008-01-15: [rrs] sigh. "I recommend" in the note above is me, Ralph.

2008-04-14: RESOLVED: To state formal aspects of the SKOS data model in the main body of the SKOS Reference as sentences of prose following the style of prose used in the RDF Schema specification <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/>. An OWL ontology will also be given as an appendix to the SKOS Reference, however the prose in the main body of the SKOS Reference will take precedence. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Mar/0027.html. For resolution decision, see http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html