W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:42:06 +0000
Message-Id: <6C88910B-1228-43E6-BAA0-28DA38705A67@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Novacek, Vit" <vit.novacek@deri.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, rector@cs.man.ac.uk
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
[snip]
> +1
>
> Note that the SKOS people (on the SWD Working Group) have been  
> fighting
> with the SKOS/OWL-DL relationships for a while. At the last f2f  
> meeting
> the group decided to put the DL issues on hold specifically because  
> some
> of the issues they were fighting with may become moot in OWL1.1 DL  
> (eg,
> via punning). But they can surely give a good feedback on the  
> issues if
> we ask them... (and yes, a better integration with SKOS on the
> annotation level might be a good way to handle some of these issues  
> for
> Vit, too).

I've started work on how to related SKOS and OWL prompted by Alan  
Rector and Robert Stevens. We've just had some preliminary  
discussions about what one might want to happen with skos in an OWL  
ontology.

> Caveat: the SWD WG would like to have a SKOS CR sometimes next April.
> Ie, they would probably resist adding dependencies on OWL1.1 into  
> their
> work...

As with the RIF, it seems that for some aspects of that work, the  
OWLWG is in a better position to carry it out (since we can, after  
all, tweak the language to get around problems!). Perhaps we can  
figure out some specese for them that would allow that?

Are they at last call? Is there a current draft of their owl  
integration? Would they like WG review?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 11:42:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT