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

Re: ISSUE 37+56

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:02:09 +0000
Message-Id: <11A37BAD-C3EC-4D64-9E89-1BA600D8DF8A@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On 12 Mar 2008, at 15:48, Antoine Isaac wrote:

>>> But if we include them anyway: I like very much the semantics  
>>> Guus has proposed for broaderGeneric and broaderInstantive.
>> On reflection, we might just define broaderGeneric and  
>> broaderInstantive as owl:equivalentProperty of resp.  
>> rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type (and not as subproperties of these).
> Intuitively I'm ok with that. The problem is that this makes almost  
> every OWL class also a SKOS concept, by the domain and range of  
> skos:semanticRelation!
> We've got to be sure if we want this as a side effect of an  
> apparently innocent extension ;-)

It also implicitly asserts transitivity of broaderGeneric. Is this a  
desirable side effect?


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 13:58:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:52 UTC