W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [SKOS] chatting on SKOS concepts and ontology classes (was Re: ISSUE-26: SimpleExtension proposal)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:43:06 +0200
Message-ID: <466940CA.40001@few.vu.nl>
To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
CC: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Tom
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>> And what I am saying is that there is a community of people creating 
>>> OWL ontologies who want to use skos for interoperability with 
>>> terminologies.
>> I think that even if this is the direction opposite to the one I 
>> demonstrated, this is still quite the same concern. If you have
>> my:aorta rdf:type owl:Class
>> you can just assert
>> my:aorta skos:prefLabel "aorta"
>> And bang, it is now also an instance skos:Concept, compatible with other 
>> terminologies. You can say my:aorta skos:broader his:BloodyThingsInbody, 
>> assuming that this is a concept define in someone else's terminology.
> I don't quite get the "bang" part... What is there in the
> semantics of skos:prefLabel [1,2] to support this inference?

Sorry, my mistake. I actually found that the preferredTerm proposed by 
Guus had skos:Concept as a domain [3] so I generalized this thinking 
that prefLabel had (or would have one) such a domain assignment. But 
this is clearly not in the specs [1,2], and we should be careful with 
that. Thanks for spotting the weak point!

But I could rephrase my example: if I assert
my:aorta skos:broader myAnatomyThesaurus:BloodCircuit

Then thanks to the domain of skos:semanticRelation (which subsumes 
skos:related) [4] I have the "bang" effect



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#prefLabel
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#prefLabel
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 11:43:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC