W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Mapping SKOS into BFO

From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:26 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikJZq9En14BUJto_jaL4R9z-Pdu8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Two small cents: there's
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skos-primer-20090818/#secskosowl which
> mentions the possibility for classes to be treated as concepts as well.
> Intuitively, it does not seem in blatant contraction with your proposal,
> though.

I wrote CMO with that usage in mind, along with the idea that some
clases (i.e. realist classes) are not themselves concepts, but other
classes may very well be.

> But this is just intuition, I must say that I don't know BFO. If you have
> somewhere a class for classes, and if (for some reason that wouldn't be
> intuitive to me) this class is asserted to be disjoint with the one of
> generically dependent continuents, then there might be issues.

CMO contains two meta-classes, one of which is cmo:Type, a subclass of
skos:Concept. The other is cmo:UniversalClass, which is a subclass of
independent continuent. Universal classes cannot be concepts, but can
be represented by concepts. This distinction is what allows
integration between realist and conceptual/linguistic ones while
knowing what side of the fence it sits.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 17:10:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:14 UTC