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 -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhoferReceived on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 13:58:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 March 2008 13:58:49 GMT