W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [SKOS] OWL DL compatibility

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:49:30 +0100
Message-ID: <45DC31CA.9090701@mondeca.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Dan

I bit my tongue in my previous message not to re-open this issue, but 
since you opened it ...

> How about restricting the SKOS stuff to just work with SKOS stuff, not 
> with OWL. But then defining a bridge property that links from a class 
> to a (possibly anonymous) SKOS entity that "shadows" it for purposes 
> of documentation.
Again, +1.
> Assuming:
>    skos:as rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .
>
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Person">
>  <skos:as skos:prefLabel="Person" skos:altLabel="Guy"/>
> </owl:Class>
I really like that idea.
But was puzzled by this "malign syntax", and tried to figure how tools 
support that.
Added it to my test ontology, and imported it in my favourite ontology 
editors to see how this syntax flies
    In Swoop 2.3, the "implicit blank node" was just ignored. :-(
    In Protégé 3.2, got as value of skos:as this string 
'SimpleInstance(nullA0 of [Cls(protege:ExternalResource, FrameID(0:9106 
0))])'. Cool :-D

Just to make sure, tried a less simplified syntax, with an explicit 
blank node class

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Person">
 <skos:as>
     <skos:Concept skos:prefLabel="Person" skos:altLabel="Guy"/>
 </skos:as>
</owl:Class>

Seems a bit better digested by Swoop, at least in the GUI, but after 
saving re-exports this
 
 <owl:Class rdf:about="#Person">
    <skos:as rdf:resource="#genid1"/>
  </owl:Class>

Looking for the #genid1 definition ... hmm, it's not in the file.
But I find a poor lonesome concept

<skos:Concept skos:altLabel="Guy" skos:prefLabel="Person"/>

Did not even try in Protégé. Actually OWL editors are not happy with 
blank nodes which are not built-in OWL constructs (complex classes such 
as unionOf ...)

So ... maybe DL compatible, but not OWL-editors-of-the-market-friendly

Devil is in the details ...

Bernard

>
> Dan
>
> -- 
> http://danbri.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 11:49:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:55 GMT