Re: personal review of SKOS Reference for WG consideration

Could you please send it to us as well? Thanks,
Alan

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:

> 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
>
>