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

RE: personal review of SKOS Reference for WG consideration

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:23:48 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0D3CAEF@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Peter, and all!

I have to apologize. I just remember that I have agreed in one of our
earlier telcos to contribute my own SKOS review stuff. But I later forgot
about this again, and sent my review privately, anyway. Well, it won't come
back...

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:41 PM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: personal review of SKOS Reference for WG consideration
>
>
>I will almost certainly be sending in this review.  It might be a good
>idea to have the WG determine whether to have this (slightly modified)
>as a WG review as well.  Note that the deadline for reviews is 3
>October (2008).
>
>peter
>
>PS:  I sent almost all of this review to the WG a while ago, but I don't
>think that it was discussed.
>
>
>
>Review of SKOS Reference last call document
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/
>
>The avoidance of formality in the reference is disturbing.  It would
>have
>been much better to have the definitions in some machine-readable format
>as much as possible.  I understand that there is an RDF document for
>this purpose, at http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos, but there is no mention
>of this RDF document in the reference document.  I would find it very
>much better to have the RDF or OWL (partial) definitions for the SKOS
>vocabulary in this document.
>
>I have performed an analysis (from the reference document, not from the
>RDF document) of the bits of SKOS that are not in OWL 1 DL.  For those
>bits that are not in OWL 2 DL, I have suggestions on how SKOS could be
>changed to make it fit within OWL 2 DL, where I could figure this out.
>I note that much of the bits that are not OWL 2 DL are in the examples.
>
>Section         Language        What bit / Suggestions to put into OWL 2
>DL
>
>skos:Concept    OWL 2 DL        individual/class/property punning
>(examples)
>
>Concept Schemes OWL 2 DL        individual/ontology "punning" (example)
>
>Lexical Labels  OWL 2 Full      subproperty of rdfs:label
>                                  suggestion: don't use rdfs:label
>
>                OWL 2 DL        property disjointness
>
>                not OWL         axiom schema for unique prefLabel
>                                  suggestion: include qualified
>                                  cardinality restrictions only
>                                  for languages used (defined using
>                                  datatype restrictions)
>
>                OWL 2 DL        individual / class punning (example)
>
>                OWL 2 Full      objects as values of data property
>(example)
>                                  suggestion: don't do this
>
>Notations       extra datatypes various extra datatypes
>                                  suggestion: sort of in OWL 1 DL
>                                  already, but unlikely to be supported
>                                  by all tools
>
>Documentation   OWL 2 Full      using literal in object property
>(examples)
>                                  suggestion: don't do this
>
>                OWL 2 Full      use of rdf:value (example)
>                                  suggestion: don't use rdf:value
>
>                OWL 2 DL        individual/class punning (example)
>
>Semantic Rel's  OWL 2 DL        disjoint properties
>
>Concept Coll'ns OWL 2 Full      ordering with typing
>                                  suggestion: see below
>
>Mapping Props   OWL 2 DL        disjoint properties
>
>SKOS X          OWL 2 Full      data property chains
>                                 suggestion: ??
>
>
>Here is a way of handling typed ordering that should fit within OWL 2
>DL, although I haven't checked all the details.
>
>Declare( ObjectProperty(skos:firstMember) )
>Declare( ObjectProperty(skos:nextMembers) )
>Declare( ObjectProperty(skos:otherMembers) )
>FunctionalProperty(skos:firstMember)
>FunctionalProperty(skos:nextMembers)
>
>Domain( skos:firstMember skos:OrderedCollection )
>Range( skos:firstMember UnionOf(skos:Concept skos:ConceptScheme) ) ??
>
>Domain( skos:nextMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
>Domain( skos:nextMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
>Domain( skos:otherMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
>Domain( skos:otherMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
>
>SubPropertyOf( skos:nextMembers skos:otherMembers )
>SubPropertyOf( PropertyChain(skos:otherMembers skos:nextMembers)
>skos:otherMembers )
>
>SubPropertyOf( skos:firstMember skos:member )
>SubpropertyOf( PropertyChain(skos:otherMembers skos:firstMember)
>skos:member )
>
>
>
>Specific comments:
>
>The introduction uses some sophisticated Turtle constructs without even
>any mention of the syntax being used.  At least a pointer is required
>here.
>
>Nits:
>
>"data are" vs "data does"
>
>counter-intuitive meaning -> counter-intuitive feeling


Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 16:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC