- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:46:53 -0000
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, > > > > [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. I thought our resolution was to *say nothing* about disjointness between skos:Concept and owl:Class. That would give people the freedom to interpret them as disjoint, if they want to do that, or not, if they don't. That's what I tried to capture in: [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference/Concepts?action=recall&rev=10> >From [1] ... "The decision to leave the formal semantics of skos:Concept undefined has been made to allow different design patterns for using SKOS in combination with more formal languages such as OWL to be explored. For example, interpreting skos:Concept and owl:Class as disjoint classes would be consistent with the semantics of SKOS. Alternatively, interpreting skos:Concept as a super-class of owl:Class would also be consistent with the semantics of SKOS." Cheers, Al.
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 13:49:17 UTC