SKOS and OWL

Bernard Vatant wrote:

> First it sounds like you're thinking there is a single and 
> systematic way to convert OWL to SKOS, and I hope it's not the case.
> Second, it would lead folks to think that SKOS and OWL are just
> two languages to model the same things differently, which
> IMO is plainly wrong. Actually I hope the ongoing SKOS standardization
> will eventually clarify what SKOS is about vs ontology languages.

I think you misunderstood Mark, but anyway: thanks for this clear
statement! Mixing SKOS and OWL is just wrong. Yes, OWL and SKOS have
something in common:

1.) Both are based on RDF

2.) OWL can be used as a meta-language to describe the SKOS vocabulary.

3.) Both are mostly used to deal with some kind of reality.


But:

I.) In the Semantic Web everything is based on RDF no matter if it makes
sense or not.

II.) OWL cannot be used to describe conrete Concepts Schemes that are
expressed in SKOS.

III.) Many other things, for instance texts, also describe some kind of
reality. If you call both OWL and SKOS (or their application) "semantic"
and "ontology" because they both describe a reality then your definition
of "semantic" and "ontology" is meaningless (like in 95% of the papers
and talks about Semantic Web ;-)


Greetings,
Jakob

Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 15:06:54 UTC