On 2 Jul 2008, at 19:07, Rob Seaman wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 3:27 AM, Alasdair Gray wrote:
>
>> In going through the document, I have found that there is now a
>> skos:notation. To my mind, this would be a natural construct to use
>> to model the position of concepts in the avm hierarchy. Does anyone
>> object to this?
>
> Maybe you can comment on why this seems natural, the benefits, any
> significant downsides, etc?
The skos:notation has been added to the standard specifically for the purpose of modelling taxonomical numbers.
The downsides are that not all applications may be keeping up with the latest developments so they may just get ignored in some application. However, this is only a minor downside and I would argue that we should use them.
Alasdair
> It's hard to imagine I would have any objections - but it's also
> hard to imagine I'll be able to keep up with evolving drafts of SKOS.
>
> Rob
>
Received on 2008-07-03Z11:01:12