- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:38:30 -0800
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>,SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
At 12:44 AM 2/8/2008, Antoine Isaac wrote: >Dear all, > >Alistair had some concern about the wording of the attached >proposal, which we accepted in last week's. >> >>Dear all, >> >>Regarding ISSUE-32 ConceptSchemeLabellingInteractions [1], I >>propose that we accept the following recommendation from the SKOS >>Primer [2, section 2.1.1] >> >>>Following common practice in KOS design, the preferred label of a >>>concept may be also used to unambiguously represent this concept >>>within one KOS and its applications. Although SKOS semantics do >>>not formally enforce it, it is therefore recommended that no two >>>concepts in the same KOS be given the same preferred lexical label >>>in any given language. > >To alleviate these concerns, the Primer should now read >[[ >Following common practice in KOS design, the preferred label of a >concept may be also used to unambiguously represent this concept >within one KOS and its applications. It is therefore recommended >that no two concepts in the same KOS be given the same preferred >lexical label in any given language. But SKOS semantics do not >formally enforce this, since some commonly used classification >schemes, for instance, may break this rule. Can you give example of a classification scheme that breaks this rule? It doesn't make much sense for the preferred label of a concept NOT to unambiguously represent the concept within ONE KOS. >]] > >Alistair, are you ok with this? > >Cheers, > >Antoine >> >> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/32 >>[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer , January >>24 editor's draft. >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 12:38:46 UTC