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

ISSUE-137 draft response

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:02:54 +0100
Message-Id: <043F2328-E2EC-4E48-94DA-33F37776F0A1@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Michael on [ISSUE-137], 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]:

"""
Property disjointness is not expressible in OWL Full. This should be  
discussed
somewhere in the document, I think. Property disjointness is,  
however, planned
to be expressible in OWL 2.
"""

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

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. Property  
disjointness is precisely one of these cases.

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?

Cheers,

	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-137] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/137
[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 16:02:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 October 2008 16:02:43 GMT