RE: [SKOS] Resolutions on concept semantics

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.