W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: ISSUE-157 Draft response [was Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document]

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:26:11 +0000
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081204172609.GA12116@skiathos>

Hi Guus,

This looks good to me.

Thanks,

Alistair.

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 03:23:28PM +0100, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> All,
>
> This is a *draft response* wrt ISSUE-157. Please send comments to the 
> list. As agreed during the last telecon, we intend to send the actual 
> response Friday 5 Dec, end of the day, so reactions before that time 
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Guus
>
>
> -----------------------
> Peter,
>
> Thanks again for your comments on behalf of the OWL WG [1]. This is a 
> response to part of these comments, marked in our issues list as 
> ISSUE-157 "SKOS and OWL 2 analysis" [2]:
>
> [[
>   The OWL WG notes that some parts of the SKOS specification and some 
> examples in the reference document do not fit within OWL 2 DL and that 
> thus may not be fully supported by Semantic Web tools.  The OWL WG 
> presents the following analysis of the SKOS specification and examples, 
> to indicate where representation capabilities beyond OWL 1 DL are used. 
> The OWL WG further notes that in many cases the SKOS specification fits  
> within OWL 2 DL, but that the examples do not.  The OWL WG suggests 
> removing those examples that do not fit within OWL 2 DL.([from [1])
> ]]
>
> below you find our responses to the SKOS aspects that are not OWL 2 DL 
> compliant. As a general strategy, we have tried as much as possible to 
> accommodate the alignment with OWL 2 DL. A number of specific points 
> cannot be resolved at this time (see below), so we have decided to 
> POSTPONE this issue.
>
> [[
> Section: Lexical Labels
> Language: OWL 2 Full
> Issue: subproperty of rdfs:label
> Suggestion: don't use rdfs:label
> ]]
>
> We prefer to keep the subProperty relation; however, we propose to change 
> the type of the lexical label to owl:AnnotationProperty. Assuming that 
> OWL 2 DL will support subproperty statements between annotation 
> properties, this change shroud at least partially solve the issue.
>
> [[
> Section: Lexical Labels
> Language: OWL 2 Full
> Issue: objects as values of data property (example)
> Suggestion: don't do this
> ]]
>
> We assume you refer to example 17; we propose to remove this example.
>
> [[
> Section: Documentation
> Language: OWL 2 Full
> Issue: using literal in object property (examples)
> Suggestion: don't do this
>
> Section: Documentation
> Language: OWL 2 Full
> Issue: use of rdf:value (example)
> Suggestion: don't use rdf:value
> ]]
>
> We assume you refer to examples 24,25 and 27. We propose the following 
> changes:
>
> - move examples 24 and 25 to Sec. 7.5.2., i.e. the note on alignment of 
> the range semantics with OWL semantics; this would leave only the "OWL 2 
> DL"-consistent example in Sec. 7.4;
>
> - change example 27 to use as subject a resource with an rdf:value 
> property;
>
> - reverse the order of the two notes, i.e. Sec. 7.5.1. and Sec. 7.5.2.
>
> We prefer to keep the rdf:value examples, as this the RDF standard 
> defines this as the preferred way of identifying the value in "value" 
> resources. However, these rdf;Value are now only used in "Note" sections, 
> which contain the appropriate caveats about the semantics.
>
> [[
> Section: Lexical Labels
> Language: not OWL
> Issue: axiom schema for unique prefLabel
> Suggestion: include qualified cardinality restrictions only
>   for languages used (defined using datatype restrictions)
>
> Section: Concept Collections
> Language: OWL 2 Full
> Issue: ordering with typing
> Suggestion: see [1]
>
> Section: SKOS XL
> Language: OWL 2 Full
> Issue: data property chains
> Suggestion: ??
> ]]
>
> We assume these three issues refer to constraints S14 (lexical labels), 
> S35 (ordered collections) and S56, S57 & S58 (SKOS XL). Indeed, these 
> constraints can (currently) not be expressed in OWL. However, these are 
> useful constraints for tool developers and we therefore prefer to keep 
> these in the SKOS Reference.
>
>
> Please let us know whether you can live with this response.
>
> Thanks again for your comments!
>
> Regards,
> Guus
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0059.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157

> begin:vcard
> fn:Guus Schreiber
> n:Schreiber;Guus
> org:VU University Amsterdam, Computer Science
> email;internet:schreiber@cs.vu.nl
> title:Prof. dr. 
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> url:http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
> version:2.1
> end:vcard
> 


-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 17:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC