W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > November 2006

Relationships in SKOS Schemes

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:20:56 +0000
Message-Id: <BF38E7BA-441F-4084-974C-BB5EA6144BED@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

The SKOS Core Guide described the notion of concept schemes:

http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/#secscheme

[[
Usually, concepts are defined in relation to other concepts, as part
of an internally coherent concept scheme. As mentioned in the
introduction, a 'concept scheme' is defined here as: a set of
concepts, optionally including statements about semantic relationships
between those concepts.
]]

How might I represent the fact that the semantic relationships between
concepts occurs within a particular scheme? If my graph contains more
than one vocabulary or concept scheme, how do you tell which scheme
the relationships belong to?  If I understand things correctly, we can
make assertions that a particular concept is in a scheme through the
inScheme property, but this doesn't cover the semantic relationships
themselves. In fact I don't see any way of doing this without
resorting to reification....

The notion of "containment" or "what's in the ontology" was one of the
things that I found most unsatisfactory about working with OWL. In the
RDF serialisation, there's no formalised notion of the ontology itself
(in terms of which axioms occur within it) -- the best one can do is
look and see whether the axioms are in an RDF graph that happened to
contain an ontology tag. Not exactly ideal, and leads to various
horrors when using imports.

Have I missed something?

	Sean

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 18:19:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:26 GMT