> our Note was about a 'Standard Vocabulary': in any discussion of a
> vocabulary, SKOS and OWL are certainly relevant, more so than UCD-like
> tokens. (Indeed, maybe it is time to convert UCDs into a more standard form,
> like SKOS, and drop the tokenised form altogether?)
I agree with this. The longer we persist with UCDs the further behind we get technologically. UCD work began before SKOS and OWL, but well after RDF was a W3C Recommendation (1999). I looked through my e-mails and found that I was reporting to the NVO about the many fields and business that were successfully using DAML/OWL in late 2002. So we are a decade behind and it is looking like we are proceeding on to a second decade.
This SV appears to be pushing into adding properties like isElementOf and isPossibly and isNot which are handled by w3c semantics. I think the motivation was to stay with strings that did not have "<" or ">", but if that is so important then one can use Notation3 or Abstract OWL.
Ed