Draft draft 0.04
seaman at noao.edu
Sun Feb 10 23:31:31 PST 2008
Norman Gray wrote:
> I've implemented some of the changes that Alasdair and Rob discussed,
Cool. Might I suggest that any revision beyond the slightest
correction in place should receive a new version number?
>>> version: bump it up to something like 0.94 or nobody will take it
> Version numbers are tuples of non-negative integers: they have an
> ordering defined but no metric.
(And we wonder why folks aren't rushing to embrace our efforts? ;-)
There certainly is an implicit metric. V1.0 says "we're done with the
initial work package as defined". I like the bolus of work we've
settled on. We're certainly vastly more than 4% of the way to
achieving it. Pride is sinful, but the WG is likelier to fail from
> If you need to programmatically distinguish one from several
> supernovae, vocabularies won't help. A user's search for
> 'supernova' and for 'supernovae' should both translate into the same
> concept internally. The way that would happen is via labels: the
> prefLabel is what would typically be presented in a UI, and the
> altLabels and hiddenLabels contain strings that will help lead you
Hmmm. Clearly there must be library science standards for denoting
plurals. One is left wondering why SKOS didn't choose to make this
explicit. The altLabel kludge will suffice. Perhaps we can attach a
comment some such to distinguish different uses for altLabels?
>>> I don't think "a vocabulary (SKOS or otherwise)..." needs to be
> If I thought I could get away with putting it in bold capitals
> inside <blink>, I would.
<marquee>a vocabulary (SKOS or otherwise) is not an ontology</marquee>
...still don't think it's necessary, but whatever floats your boat.
More information about the semantics