Comment: ISSUE-71

With reference to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/  (Section 10)

This editorial comment:
"""With a separate vocabulary for mapping relations, a number of interactions 
between the mapping and semantic relation vocabularies then have to be 
considered. Many of these interactions have not yet been considered by the 
Working Group, and the model presented in this section reflects this state of 
affairs. The model is essentially underspecified, which leads to a number of 
potentially counter-intuitive results (see the notes below)."""

along with a general lack of clarity about the semantic relationship and/or 
interchangeability between the mapping vocabulary and the core vocabulary, and 
that the mapping vocabulary seems to be targeted as certain kinds of 
vocabulary-using application, indicate to me that:

(1) this mapping vocabulary is not yet ready for standardization

(2) work on the mapping vocabulary should not be allowed to delay publication of 
the core vocabulary whose basic structure and role in information retrieval 
systems seems relatively well established and understood

I also understand that there is a clearly perceived demand for a mapping 
vocabulary distinct from the core vocabulary.

I would therefore suggest that the mapping vocabulary be removed from this 
document, and published separately, possibly as a working group NOTE in the 
first instance, so that its development and evolution can be decoupled from that 
of the core SKOS vocabulary.  I think such a move would render the SKOS 
reference more concise and relevant for basic information retrieval purposes, 
and would permit the issues surrounding the mapping vocabulary to be explored 
more fully and developed more soundly.

#g

-- 
Graham Klyne
Contact info: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 11:39:30 UTC