Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
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? 

Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (from on 2008-01-08)
  2. ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (was: Comments on SKOS Reference) (from on 2008-01-08)
  3. ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (from on 2008-01-08)
  4. RE: ISSUE-67: StatingFormalDefinitions (from on 2008-01-14)
  5. RE: Comments on SKOS Reference (from on 2008-01-18)
  6. [SKOS] Issues Review [From Alistair] (from on 2008-02-17)
  7. [Fwd: [SKOS] Issues Review (from on 2008-02-21)
  8. [SKOS] Issues Review (from on 2008-02-21)
  9. Meeting Record: 2008-02-27 SWD telecon (from on 2008-03-01)
  10. [SKOS] ISSUE-67 StatingFormalDefinitions (from on 2008-03-10)
  11. Minutes from 2008-03-18 telecon (from on 2008-03-19)
  12. [SKOS] Issue owners - preparation for Washington (from on 2008-04-15)
  13. Re: [SKOS] Issue owners - preparation for Washington (from on 2008-04-21)

Related notes:

2008-01-08: See also mail from Tom Baker:

2008-01-15: Better formal specifications for Turtle and N3 were published yesterday: 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 <>. 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. -- For resolution decision, see