- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:01:50 +0000
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter, Thanks for your comments on behalf of the OWL WG [1]. This is a response to part of these comments, marked in our issues list as ISSUE-157 "SKOS and OWL 2 analysis" [2]: [[ The OWL WG notes that some parts of the SKOS specification and some examples in the reference document do not fit within OWL 2 DL and that thus may not be fully supported by Semantic Web tools. The OWL WG presents the following analysis of the SKOS specification and examples, to indicate where representation capabilities beyond OWL 1 DL are used. The OWL WG further notes that in many cases the SKOS specification fits within OWL 2 DL, but that the examples do not. The OWL WG suggests removing those examples that do not fit within OWL 2 DL.([from [1]) ]] below you find our responses to the SKOS aspects that are not OWL 2 DL compliant. As a general strategy, we have tried as much as possible to accommodate the alignment with OWL 2 DL. A number of specific points cannot be resolved at this time (see below), so we have decided to POSTPONE this issue. [[ Section: Lexical Labels Language: OWL 2 Full Issue: subproperty of rdfs:label Suggestion: don't use rdfs:label ]] We prefer to keep the subProperty relation; however, we propose to change the type of the lexical label to owl:AnnotationProperty (see resolution of ISSUE 135 [3]). Assuming that OWL 2 DL will support subproperty statements between annotation properties, this change should at least partially solve the issue. [[ Section: Lexical Labels Language: OWL 2 Full Issue: objects as values of data property (example) Suggestion: don't do this ]] We assume you refer to example 17; we propose to remove this example. [[ Section: Documentation Language: OWL 2 Full Issue: using literal in object property (examples) Suggestion: don't do this Section: Documentation Language: OWL 2 Full Issue: use of rdf:value (example) Suggestion: don't use rdf:value ]] As discussed above, the resolution to ISSUE 135 [3] resulted in the SKOS labelling properties being typed as OWL Annotation properties. We propose that the documentation properties be treated similarly. This would then address the issue of the use of a literal with a documentation property. Although this is not then strictly OWL DL compliant, we understand that this will potentially fit with OWL 2 annotations. We propose to remove example 25 (the use of rdf:value). [[ Section: Lexical Labels Language: not OWL Issue: axiom schema for unique prefLabel Suggestion: include qualified cardinality restrictions only for languages used (defined using datatype restrictions) Section: Concept Collections Language: OWL 2 Full Issue: ordering with typing Suggestion: see [1] Section: SKOS XL Language: OWL 2 Full Issue: data property chains Suggestion: ?? ]] We assume these three issues refer to constraints S14 (lexical labels), S35 (ordered collections) and S56, S57 & S58 (SKOS XL). Indeed, these constraints can (currently) not be expressed in OWL. However, these are useful constraints for tool developers and we therefore prefer to keep these in the SKOS Reference. Please let us know whether you can live with this response. Thanks again for your comments. Sean Bechhofer Alistair Miles Guus Schreiber [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0059.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157 [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135 -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 19:03:24 UTC