Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-83 semantics of scheme containment properties

Hi Alistair,

I agree that the first solution you propose makes the trick from a 
semantic perspective. But I don't like having an extra vocabulary 
element just for this...

I had actually written [1] to look a bit like the general entailments of 
the SKOS Reference, thinking that we could  just have:
> ex:cs skos:hasTopConcept ex:c.
> entails
> ex:c skos:inScheme ex:cs
>   

Otherwise I think you can indeed introduce a non-named property in an 
OWL axiom, like (hoping I'm not making any mistake...)

skos:hasTopconcept rdfs:subPropertyOf [ a owl:ObjectProperty; 
owl:inverseOf skos:inScheme .] .

Again, I would definitively favor one of these two options over 
introducing a new property.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008May/0068.html


> Hi Antoine,
>
> I'm just trying to figure out how to implement the resolution [1] to
> issue 83 [2] in the SKOS reference.
>
> The most obvious way is to introduce a new property, called something
> like skos:topConceptInScheme, and introduce two new statements into the
> SKOS data model, that skos:topConceptInScheme is a sub-property of
> skos:inScheme, and that skos:topConceptInScheme is the inverse of
> skos:hasTopConcept.
>
> Another way would be to avoid introducing any new properties, and to
> include a new statement in the data model, something like, "the inverse
> of skos:hasTopConcept is a sub-property of skos:inScheme", or "if a
> scheme has a top concept, then the top concept is in that scheme",
> or ... ?
>
> At the moment I favour the first approach. It has an obvious meaning in
> terms of RDFS/OWL. The second approach has no obvious translation in
> RDFS/OWL, and is difficult to word.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al. 
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008May/0068.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/83
>
>