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

ISSUE-136 draft response

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:02:30 +0100
Message-Id: <CCCE47DF-8C8A-4595-AC33-D870E69788B0@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Michael on [ISSUE-136], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Michael. (Michael if you're lurking on this list feel free to post your
thoughts at any time.)

	Sean


Dear Michael

Thank you for your comments [1]:

"""
I'm not clear how to express S12 in OWL, should this be intended. One  
can use
rdfs:Literal as the range, which would also contain all typed  
literals. One can
use xsd:string, which has at least a value space equivalent to the  
set of plain
literals, but this would require to have labels of the form "Hello
World!"^^xsd:string.

Note: Currently, there is some ongoing work (by the OWL and the RIF  
working
groups) on specifying a new data type "rdf:text", which denotes the  
set of all
internationalized plain tags. But, AFAIU, this datatype will /not/  
contain those
plain literals having /no/ language tag. Here is some text, which is  
currently
under development (so be careful, it's nothing official):
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec>.
"""

-------------------------------------------------------------

As you point out, there are some constraints in the SKOS data model  
that we are unable to express in OWL (some of these /may/ be  
addressed by OWL 2, but in the current SKOS specification we are  
avoiding reference to work in progress). In such cases, the  
constraints are expressed in prose in the document. Thus the lack of  
an OWL version of S12 is rather through /necessity/ than intention.

Statements to this effect are made in Section 1.7.1 of the LC draft.  
Do you feel these are sufficient, or do we need to further elaborate  
this point?

As you point out, in this case it would be possible to approximate  
the constraint -- this is a choice we have not made here. Are you  
willing to live with the current status?

[ISSUE-136] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/136
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 16:02:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 October 2008 16:02:27 GMT