W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-157]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:51:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20081210.165149.177661139.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org

These all appear to be reasonable responses, personally.

In particular, you correctly note that the recent additions to OWL 2 on
sub-annotation properties allow some extra SKOS stuff to be in OWL 2 DL.

peter


From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document [ISSUE-157]
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:01:50 +0000

> 
> 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 21:52:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 December 2008 21:52:13 GMT