ISSUE-64

TextualDescriptionsForConcepts

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SKOS

Raised by:

Alistair Miles

Opened on:

2007-11-20

Description:

SKOS currently has 7 "documentation"/"note" properties: skos:note,
skos:scopeNote, skos:defition, skos:historyNote, skos:editorialNote,
skos:changeNote, skos:example.

In the SKOS Core Guide
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102>, 3 different design
patterns are allowed for these properties -- "documentation as an RDF literal",
"documentation as a related resource description", and "documentation as a
document reference". 

Do we continue to allow these different design patterns? If we do, we have to
accept a complex range for these properties. Is that OK? How should we formally
specify that?

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-64: TextualDescriptionsForConcepts (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2007-11-20)
2. RE: ISSUE-64: TextualDescriptionsForConcepts (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-11-20)
3. [SKOS] top priorities (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-11-20)
4. RE: ISSUE-64: TextualDescriptionsForConcepts (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-11-20)
5. [SKOS] Issues Review [From Alistair] (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-02-17)
6. [Fwd: [SKOS] Issues Review (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-21)
7. [SKOS] Issues Review (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-21)
8. [SKOS] Issue owners - preparation for Washington (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2008-04-15)
9. Re: [SKOS] Issue owners - preparation for Washington (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-04-21)

Related notes: