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

Re: ISSUE-136 draft response

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:15:27 +0100
To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20081002191527.GB6809@skiathos>

Looks good to me.

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 05:02:30PM +0100, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 19:16:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 October 2008 19:16:06 GMT