- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:37:34 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Alistair, I think your proposal makes sense. I would vote for the Primer, given that the subject is important. But perhaps we shall decide on that after the discussion. Cheers, Antoine >> I agree that keeping the "domainless-ness" of SKOS >> labelling/documentation properties help solving a lot of >> problem (that's solution 4 in the wiki page). >> One thing I would like to mention is that even with this >> option we should put something related on the subject of >> labelling/documentation of OWL classes in the current documentation. >> > > Yes, absolutely. I had imagined that we would write a document on different design patterns for using SKOS with OWL -- where using SKOS for labelling/documentation in OWL ontologies would be one of those design patterns. We could then include this document as either a section of the SKOS Primer, or publish as a separate Note on its own. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Alistair. > > > >> Actually it was in the draft I prepared, but the >> "wikification" caused the disappearing of the note :-( >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0018.html >> makes the point that applying labelling properties to a >> resource does not make it an instance of skos:Concept. >> However, there could be >> confusion: all existing SKOS documentation (e.g . >> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#prefLabel) refers to >> these properties as applied to instances of skos:Concept. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> At 08:20 AM 10/2/2007, Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:41:41 UTC