[SKOS] Decisions on Concept Scheme issues

• From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
• Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:41:57 +0200
• To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
• Message-ID: <471E2455.90304@few.vu.nl>

Hi,
About
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Antoine to list decisions made about concept scheme 
> [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action13]
which overlaps a lot with Guus' action
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Guus to post an interpretation of the Amsterdam 
> discussion of isDefinedBy [recorded in 
> https://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action14]
We have in the following from https://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html
> ... proposal is to accept the proposal from alistair as a resolution 
> for closing issue 36
(Alistair's proposal at 
https://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1) 
> ... with two remarks
>
> 1. for historical reasons, inscheme is kept as a subprop of isDefinedBy
>
> 2. we dont touch hasTopConcept
>
> al: are we explicitly depracating skos:inScheme
>
> danbri: precedents for deprecation?
>
> al: in prev WG we useed OWLs classes for these
>
> danbri: i suggest doing likewise here
>
> guus: formalities
> ... no objections, abstentions
> ... resolved by consensus
>
> we agree 3. that deprecating skos:inScheme (using approporiate owl 
> vocab) is part of the accepted proposal
So I think this is pretty explicit, even if the third part (which I'm 
not really fond of, but that's another story) has been added in a 
strange way.
Antoine

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 16:41:59 UTC