RE: domain/range for skos props

et Bernard :

Agreed - SKOS should be easy to understand.
Yes - the 'skos:formalMatch  a  rdf:Property;' seems quite simple.

and YES I am trying to discern how SKOS can be used to build semantic
bridges between 'real world things' (as categorized by thesauri and
embellished by facets) and 'web services constrained by XSD archetypes'
(as in attributes with lists).

I thank you for sharing your perceptions

carl

<quote who="Bernard Vatant">
>
>
> Benjamin
>
>> A basic thing I like about SKOS is that I could easily understand and
>> implement
>> the core part of it. so adding complexity to the spec may have a
>> negative
>> effect on its success/deployment (?).
>
> Sure enough. Count me in early adopters of easy-to-understand specs !!
>
>> Is there another (indirect) way to create a link between rdfs classes
>> and skos
>> concepts, that could be used as an alternative, or a property with
>> domain=rdfs:Class and range=skos:Concept?
>
> I tried without success to found out my earlier suggestions in this forum
> archive, so it
> was probably somewhere else ... anyway, those suggestions had never much
> response wherever
> that was, so I will have another try :))
>
> I figure an instance of "skos:Concept" as something more generic, less
> constrained/specified/formal than any formal match like some "rdfs:Class".
> IOW a Class is
> a specification of a Concept in some formal scheme (ontology). The same
> skos:Concept,
> given its very genericity, can be formalized in many different formal
> schemes, and in many
> ways. For example the concept of "Composer" can be formalized in some
> ontology as a Class
> (with instances "Mozart", "Bach", ...), and in another one as an
> ObjectProperty (linking
> "Don Giovanni" to "Mozart"), or a DatatypeProperty (if the composer is not
> enough
> identified to be an individual), in a Topic Map ontology as a Role Type
> used in a
> "Composition" Association Type, etc ...
>
> Now from where is it easier to declare the relationship between a
> skos:Concept and one of
> its many formal matches? Not easy from the formal side, since the
> relationship itself is
> quite informal, and to make it more formal implies to consider e.g. the
> formal OWL entity
> (class or property) as an individual ... which some folks will not like.
>
> So I would suggest to do it from the unformal side. Let me have a try at
> it:
>
> skos:formalMatch  a  rdf:Property;
> 	rdfs:domain  skos:Concept;
> 	rdfs:range   skos:formalConcept.
>
> skos:formalConcept being defined as superClass of whatever formal animals
> live in RDF
> land, like:
>
> rdfs:Class  	rdfs:subClassOf  	skos:formalConcept
> rdf:Property 	rdfs:subClassOf  	skos:formalConcept
>
> Not sure about ...
>
> skos:formalConcept	rdfs:subClassOf  	skos:Concept
>
> Since all the above would entail the provocative
>
> rdfs:Class  	rdfs:subClassOf  	skos:Concept
> rdf:Property 	rdfs:subClassOf  	skos:Concept
>
> hmmm ...
>
> Anyway, applications would be like
>
> a:Composer  a  skos:Concept
> b:Composer  a  rdfs:Class
> c:Composer  a  owl:ObjectProperty
>
> a:Composer  skos:formalMatch  b:Composer
> a:Composer  skos:formalMatch  c:Composer
>
> Those declarations are non-intrusive wrt the formal vocabulary, but allow
> to somehow
> "federate" the various formal "flavours" of a non-formal concept.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Bernard
>
>
> **********************************************************************************
>
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>
> "Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com
> "Everything is a Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
>
> **********************************************************************************
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Benjamin Nowack
>> Envoyé : jeudi 21 octobre 2004 18:19
>> À : Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>> Cc : 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
>> Objet : Re: domain/range for skos props
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21.10.2004 13:01:53, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>> ...
>> >Relating back to Benjamin's initial point: if we decide that
>> >skos:broader/narrower/related should only be used with skos:Concepts,
>> then
>> >this behaviour seems appropriate; however if we decide that it's OK to
>> use
>> >skos:broader/narrower/related with any type of resource, then this
>> behaviour
>> >seems inappropriate (??).
>> >
>> >An alternative would be to remove domain/range statements on
>> >skos:semanticRelation, but to introduce OWL restrictions on the
>> skos:Concept
>> >class, e.g.
>> >
>> ><rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Concept">
>> >  <rdfs:subClassOf>
>> >    <owl:Restriction>
>> >      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#broader" />
>> >      <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Concept" />
>> >    </owl:Restriction>
>> >  </rdfs:subClassOf
>> ></rdfs:Class>
>> >
>> >This means that skos:broader/narrower/related could be used with any
>> type of
>> >resource, but when used on a skos:Concept must point to another
>> >skos:Concept.  (Is this the type of constraint we want?)
>> Not sure. I heard that restrictions should primarily be used to infer
>> class
>> memberships by looking at the props, instead of using them to define
>> constraints on explicitly typed individuals, but I may well be wrong (or
>> under-informed).
>> A basic thing I like about SKOS is that I could easily understand and
>> implement
>> the core part of it. so adding complexity to the spec may have a
>> negative
>> effect on its success/deployment (?). Although I'd really like to use
>> skos
>> terms on classes, SKOS' ease of use could be more important (broadening
>> the
>> domain of skos:example and skos:definition, i.e. the datatype
>> properties,
>> is probably ok, I'd assume).
>> Is there another (indirect) way to create a link between rdfs classes
>> and skos
>> concepts, that could be used as an alternative, or a property with
>> domain=rdfs:Class and range=skos:Concept?
>>
>> Dunno, but is this a topic the SWBPD WG's vocabulary management TF could
>> help
>> clarify? I'm currently trying to build support for both skos and rdfs in
>> my
>> vocab editor, but I don't know (yet) how to link from terms to skos
>> concepts. (I
>> can simply add skos:prefLabel to classes but does that really allow me
>> to
>> identify the related concept?) I didn't read all of the available skos
>> material, though. maybe I just have to read more carefully.
>>
>> regards,
>> benjamin
>>
>> --
>> Benjamin Nowack
>>
>> Kruppstr. 100
>> 45145 Essen, Germany
>> http://www.appmosphere.com/
>>
>> >> >Al.
>> >> >
>> >> >---
>> >> >Alistair Miles
>> >> >Research Associate
>> >> >CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> >> >Building R1 Room 1.60
>> >> >Fermi Avenue
>> >> >Chilton
>> >> >Didcot
>> >> >Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>> >> >United Kingdom
>> >> >Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>> >> >Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi

Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 19:47:25 UTC