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

questions on SKOS

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:34:13 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Cc: Bill Bug <wbug@ncmir.ucsd.edu>

Hello everyone,

An interesting thread related to SKOS on another list. Bill Bug 
posted some questions to which people on this list might want to respond.


I may be taking too simple a view of this issue, but my sense is the 
only part of SKOS that can be useful without creating an overly 
complex graph of entailments that will require a lot of custom logic 
are the annotation properties they put in the original SKOS OWL file.

Though we do eventually want to be able to trace provenance on a 
declared synonymies, my sense is what we need NOW is a shared 
annotation property used across all OBO ontologies for things like 
"synonym", "abbreviation", "scope note", "history note", 
"definition", "OBO definition" - just to avoid the babel of 
home-grown annotation properties that will each necessitate creating 
and maintain custom logic (or annotation property maps) in order to 
process.  This is the simple objective I'd hoped SKOS would adopt 
first, before leaping to the more complex objective of providing a 
shared framework to support expressing logical entailments related to 
"acts of speech".

Am I'm being too facile in thinking such a shared set of 
lexically-oriented annotation properties - opaque to the DIG 
reasoners - would be of use to OBI and the broader community.  Should 
we not expect this to come from SKOS, and all simply use (or extend) 
the annotation properties that come with OBOinOWL?


On Nov 19, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Chris Mungall wrote:

>I think the broader/narrower/exact type relations are potentially
>useful for encoding the relation between a universal and a linguistic
>unit. e.g. synonyms in obo format. I'm not sure to what extent this
>is overloading SKOS.
>On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>I guess my basic question is, what does the broader / narrower
>>relationships mean? "Broader concepts are typically rendered as
>>parents in a concept hierarchy" Do you have any better way to think
>>about them than "the relationship to use instead of  using superclass
>>properly, if you are in a rush"?
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 15:51:54 UTC

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