RE: [SKOS] Amsterdam topic "Concept semantics"

Hi Antoine,

Nice work on this topic. This is always the hardest one for me, whenever I think too hard about it I end up convinced that actually there is no such thing as the "real world", and that I will, as Douglas Adams says, "disappear in a puff of logic" :)

I'd like to make a suggestion. 

We have, as you mention, some use cases where people want to use only the labelling and documentation properties from SKOS, to add more human-readable content to their formal (OWL) ontologies.

Currently, neither the SKOS labelling properties nor the SKOS documentation properties are declared with any domain. There are no dependencies between these properties and the skos:Concept class.

I propose that we keep them like that. This would allow the SKOS labelling properties and the SKOS documentation properties to be treated as if they were standalone modules, and to be used anywhere in RDF or OWL, without having to worry about the semantics of the skos:Concept class.

(Maybe we could give this a name, as a design pattern for using SKOS and OWL together -- i.e. "OWL + SKOS labelling and documentation only" or something like that?)

Anyway, if we keep them like that, then we don't need to consider any of the SKOS labelling or documentation properties in our discussion of the semantics of skos:Concept. We can just focus on the semantics of skos:Concept, and design patterns for using skos:Concept with OWL classes, properties and individuals. This may simplify some of the options at [1].

Cheers,

Alistair.

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 25 September 2007 22:28
> To: SWD WG
> Subject: Re: [SKOS] Amsterdam topic "Concept semantics"
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've put on [1] a digest on different problems and solutions 
> related to the concept semantic issue. As there was not much 
> material available, and many related mails on SWD and SKOS 
> lists, I tried to produce one emcompassing document, 
> normalizing a bit what was mentioned in the informal discussions.
> 
> The idea is to make it the only required reading for the F2F 
> meeting on the topic (even the references are just there just 
> for authority reasons, the reader can in principle skip them) 
> I hope it is usable as such. I would welcome one or two 
> persons of the WG having a small look at it during the next 
> week: this would allow me to produce a new document in time 
> for the F2F!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics
> > This week's agenda includes an excerpt from the Amsterdam 
> agenda for 
> > the topic
> >
> >     Concept semantics (discussion leader: Antoine)
> >
> > I suggest we try to make some headway on this week's call about the 
> > scope and reading list for this topic.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >   
> >> Amsterdam topic "Concept Semantics" (Antoine)
> >> -- 
> >> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda#ConceptSemantics
> >>
> >> Relevant issue: [http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/54 
> >> '''Issue-54 ConceptSemantics''' (open)]
> >> -- Required reading? Proposed solution...?  Possible 
> problems to discuss:
> >>    * Defining the semantics of skos:Concept
> >>    * Mixing with OWL concepts
> >>     
> >
> >   
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:21:59 UTC