W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2003

Re: FW: SKOS-Mapping and OWL - set based constructs

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:37:44 +0000
Message-ID: <3FC60C38.1050002@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Alistair,

 > What do you think of this?

This does not sound like a good idea.

[Apologies - I haven't had time to look at the mapping proposal yet so 
these comments are based purely on the quoted message and I might have got 
hold of the wrong end of the stick ...]

First, I'd expect you to translate the soks AND into an OWL intersectionOf 
over the concepts not over restrictions on dc:subject.

Second, I don't see the argument that these constructs are more "intuitive" 
  than the OWL equivalents. If they are truly equivalent and all you've 
done is change the name then that doesn't seem helpful.

Third, it's not a good idea to use rdf:li here. The OWL constructs use 
parseType collection for very good reasons (to express a closed collection 
which can't be messed up semantically by later assertions).

Dave

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

> The idea is that the skos-mapping constructs are a more convenient and
> intuitive shorthand for more formal set based constructs that could be
> expressed in OWL. 
> 
> So for example, you may consider that statements such as ...
> 
> <soks:Concept rdf:about="#A">
> 	<soks-map:broaderMatch>
> 		<soks-map:AND>
> 			<rdf:li rdf:resource="#B"/>
> 			<rdf:li rdf:resource="#C"/>
> 		</soks-map:AND>
> 	</soks-map:broaderMatch>
> </soks:Concept>
> 
> ... are in fact a convenient shorthand for the statements ...
> 
> <owl:Restriction> 
>    <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/> 
>    <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#A"/> 
>    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:parseType="resource"> 
>       <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="collection"> 
>          <owl:Restriction> 
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/> 
>             <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#B"/> 
>          </owl:Restriction> 
>          <owl:Restriction> 
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/> 
>             <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#C"/> 
>          </owl:Restriction> 
>       </owl:intersectionOf> 
>    </rdfs:subClassOf> 
> </owl:Restriction> 
> 
> For further discussion of this problem, see the extended writeup of open
> design issues on the SWAD RDF Thesaurus wiki (Issue 9 - Inter-thesaurus
> mapping) <http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfThesaurus>.
> 
> What do you think of this?
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alistair.
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov]
>>Sent: 26 November 2003 18:59
>>To: A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk
>>Subject: Re: SKOS-Mapping comments and labels added
>>
>>
>>
>>You wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Comments and labels have been added to the SKOS-Mapping vocabulary.
>>>
>>><http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/2003/11/21-skos-mapping>
>>
>>This file contains AND, OR, and NOT properties which mimic OWL
>>vocabulary elements: owl:intersectionOf, owl:unionOf, and 
>>owl:complementOf respectively.  Why invent new terms?
>>
>>-Evan
>>
>>Evan K. Wallace
>>Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
>>NIST
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2003 09:41:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:51 GMT