[SKOS] Resolutions on concept semantics

Hi,

Regarding the following action:

> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Antoine to formulate 3 resolutions for Amsterdam 
> topic Concept Semantics posted to the list. as a basis for amending 
> meeting record. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action11]

Here is what I interpret from the minutes 
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html
(in the following citations comes from these minutes)
> [Antoine]
> ... first question: can we say that skos:Concept rdf:type rdfs:Class?
> ... this comes naturally, I propose to add the triple to SKOS 
> semantics. It does not add much
> ... do everyone agree?
> ... agreed
> ... 2nd question: skos:Concept rdf:type owl:Class?
> ... I propose to add this triple, if we do so, we can even remove the 
> first one
> guus: no reason to object

1. RESOLUTION: skos:Concept is an RDFS class, skos:Concept rdf:type 
rdfs:Class can be added to SKOS axiomatic triples

2. RESOLUTION: skos:Concept is an OWL class, skos:Concept rdf:type 
owl:Class can be added to SKOS axiomatic triples

Note: as said, 2 follows from 1. But perhaps 1 should be kept explicit 
for pure RDFS contexts. We did not really discuss this...

>
> [following discussion on the OWL/SKOS patterns]
> ... we are not discussing the introduction of new properties, but the 
> semantics of skos:Concept, in particular its disjointness with owl:Class
> aliman: we will not say anything about the disjointness
> sean: we should make clear that the omission is explicit

 3. RESOLUTION: skos:Concept is not disjoint with owl:Class . Some 
instances of SKOS concept may be also declared (and treated) as OWL 
classes, and vice versa.


Antoine

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 16:34:01 UTC