W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2004

RE: [proposal] skos:denotes - a use case?

From: NJ Rogers, Learning and Research Technology <Nikki.Rogers@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:36:12 +0100
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <68380000.1096540572@ilrt-haako.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Hi

>> Nice use case.
>>
>> But don't you want to use 'skos-map:exactMatch' for this?
>
> That feels a bit like declaring things about their vocabulary. If I say
> that my:A skosM:exactMatch their:B and their:C then the explanation is
> that you can substitute one for the other. This is transitive, so I am
> saying you can substitute B for C in queries and statements.
>
> Whereas if I have skos:denotes to say they describe something that has an
> unspecified sameness, but doesn't authorise direct substitution, then I
> can describe queries that should work across skos:denotes relations (one
> by one if I choose to differentiate things that don't make sense across
> the two models), without merging the two graphs.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
So, instead of using skos:denotes why can't one of 'skos-map:majorMatch' or 
'skos-map:minorMatch' or 'skos-map:broadMatch' or 'skos-map:narrowMatch' be 
used?

Apologies, but whilst I fully see the reason for the separation between 
SKOS and OWL, and I (think) I understand scenarios where they meaningfully 
'overlap', I fail to see *any use case* that actually demands use of a 
skos:denotes. I thought we had the need for links between SKOS and OWL 
covered by:

broader-instantive's  correspondance with  type,
broader-generic's corresondance with subclassof and
the skos-map:XXXMatch properties (which I assume have a range of 
rdf:Resource? i.e. can have a range of owl:Class)
+ provenance tracking wherever necessary

I thought the only argument left would be about whether to delete 
broader-instantive & broader-generic from SKOS-mapping and just advise use 
of their RDFS equivalents instead.

Or is this debate really about the fact that we want to stick some 
machinery capable of SKOS<->OWL stuff in SKOS-Core right now, so that 
SKOS-Core stands in its own right allowing us to tackle SKOS-Mapping 
separately?

I must have been left behind somewhere along the line ..... :-/

Nikki




>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Subject: [proposal] skos:denotes - a use case?
> ...
>>> Sidar doesn't have the authority to change the W3C glossary.
>>> We feel it would
>>> be a little anti-social to simply publish RDF saying that one
>>> concept defined
>>> by W3C is the same as another one.
>



----------------------
NJ Rogers, Technical Researcher
(Semantic Web Applications Developer)
Institute for Learning and Research Technology (ILRT)
Email:nikki.rogers@bristol.ac.uk
Tel: +44(0)117 9287096 (Direct)
Tel: +44(0)117 9287193 (Office)
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 10:35:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT