Draft draft 0.04

[Rob Seaman]

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  
>>> seriously
>
> 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  
faint-hearted effort.

> 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  
> there.

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  
>>> bolded.
>
> 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.

- Rob