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

Re: [SKOS] Resolutions on concept semantics (ISSUE-54)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:18:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4730A1CE.5000402@few.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Alistair, Guus,


> *ACTION:* Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on 
> Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]

and your wiki page [1] that would be used as input for this action.

Whatever the content of the primer's section about this, I would like to 
make a comment about the structure, with my editor hat on ;-)

The two scenarios and corresponding sections (1) from SKOS to OWL and 
(2) from OWL to SKOS are a bit confusing to me.
They present technical solutions ("overlay"/"transform") to have SKOS 
and OWL articulated. This is really ok, but the solution actually do not 
seem to depend on one direction. Which you say more-or-less ("what we 
are discussing here is not the process itself, but choices for 
expressing the result").
As a result, each technical solution is described twice, in a very 
similar way. Similarly, the section on mixed modelling is not dependent 
from any direction, so I don't see why it would be "outside" 
process-oriented sections.

So for the sake of clarity, I would say as a teaser that the technical 
solutions of the doc apply for different scenarios (you can also select 
the  motivations I gathered in [2]), but then just organize sections 
that are devoted to the technical representation choices.

By the way I find "transform" really unclear, more process-oriented than 
representation-oriented (in comparison "overlay" is much more convincing 
for its purpose!). Has anyone a clearer option?

Finally, I have checked my scriblings for the F2F meeting [3]. I think I 
could simplify it a lot: some variants are actually less interesting, 
and not supported by their initial promotors (e.g. Daniel with the 
skos:Entity thing ;-)
I will try to do this. Not to have my graphs forced into your section 
;-) but because I'd like to be sure in the end that all the pros and 
cons I listed are taken into account (if they are indeed relevant)

Sorry if I'm too picky here...



[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 17:18:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:51 UTC