W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2012

A question about SKOS condition S37

From: spchamp <spchamp@me.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <33663211.post@talk.nabble.com>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I have some questions considering SKOS condition S37:

   S37	skos:Collection is disjoint with each of skos:Concept and
skos:ConceptScheme. [1]

I don't wish to criticize the rationale that, as I understand, must be
represented in that condition. I presume that it may have something to do
with limiting the DL expressivity of SKOS-based ontologies, for purpose of
efficiency in inference systems - is that even close, though?

I'm not certain if that's exactly it. If it's even "close enough", I doubt
that that could be all there is to it. I understand that there must be a
rationale to it, though it was not denoted directly in [1].

My question arises as a matter of a concern that I would like to present for
review: (1) That there may be a class of Concept defined that would *not* be
naturally disjoint with a class of Collection. Secondly, on that basis: (2)
Furthermore, that a Concept Scheme could be viewed as a collection of
concepts. (Is my rationale too naive, in that?)

I would like to illustrate point #1 with a matter of classification in the
arts - namely, that the concept of Modern Art may be defined as being
semantically contained within the concept of Art (and that the concepts,
Surrealism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, and so on, those may be defined as
contained within the concept of Modern Art, in turn) . 

I consider that the concept of Modern Art does not exist independent to the
concept of Art, and that it is therefore appropriate to say that the concept
of Modern Art is contained in the concept of Art. I guess that it could be
said to represent a mode of container membership.

I would like to be able to express that sense of "conceptual container" and
semantic entailment, in an ontology. I suppose I'm simply not certain of
whether I could represent it in SKOS, however, given that condition S37.

In addition to that I would be intrigued to understand the principled basis
of condition S37, I would like to ask a question to the details of the
matter. Given an OWL class that would be defined as a subclass of both
skos:Concept and skos:Container, would that class be invalid onto SKOS?

(As far as my concern #2 as noted, I think it's essentially covered within
#1 there.)

This mailing list was denoted as it being available for discussion of SKOS
design and development[2].  I presume that this may be the most appropriate
forum for these questions, inasmuch. Thank you. Cheers.

-- Sean Champ

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L3424
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mail
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/A-question-about-SKOS-condition-S37-tp33663211p33663211.html
Sent from the w3.org - public-esw-thes mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 06:55:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:15 UTC