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

Re: AW: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: RelationshipBetweenLabels

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:16:18 +0100
Message-ID: <45E71872.9080404@few.vu.nl>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
CC: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>, Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Guus,

This is seducing from a modelling point of view. However, wouldn't it 
give a(nother) fatal blow to the OWL-DL compatibility?
In such a setting, prefLabel could be used to point at resources or 
literals, and would violate the constraint disjointness between datatype 
and object properties.

Unless we live happily with that, and decide to make a choice for an 
OWL-DL compatible version of SKOS. But this raises again the issue of 
having several versions of SKOS...

Cheers,

Antoine

>
>
>
> Jon Phipps wrote:
>
>> Hi Antoine,
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> I had an amendment of this third proposal in mind. Instead of having 
> two properties skos:prefTerm and skos:prefLabel, I would suggest to 
> have just the current one, skos:prefLabel, and removing the range 
> restriction (rdfs:literal). So, this means that if one queries for the 
> the skos:prefLabel of a concept, one either gets a literal or a 
> resource with a label equal to this literal. This prevents the use of 
> construction rules and keeps the SKOS vocabulary simple. The only 
> extension to the current SKOS vocabulary would a a class skos:Term.
>
> In retrospect, skos:prefTerm might have been a better name than 
> skos:prefLabel, but I propose to stick with the original name for 
> backward-compatibility reasons.
>
> Guus
>
> PS The same holds of course for skos:altLabel.
>
>>
>> And just to tie in last week's discussion that resulted in that page
>> [1], here's a link to the last message in that thread...
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0167.html
>>
>> --Jon
>>
>> On 3/1/07, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just a small question.
>>> Is this alternative solution you are discussing similar to the third
>>> solution I had put in [1]?
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels 
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 18:17:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:49 UTC