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

Re: some thoughts about the OWL WG comments

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:32:32 +0100
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20081010163229.GA9702@skiathos>

Hi Guus,

Some more comments ...

> DOCUMENTATION PROPERTIES
>
> [[
>     using literal in object property (examples)
>     suggestion: don't do this
> ]]
>
> We define the skos:note and its subproperties currently as  
> owl:ObjectProperty. From an OWL Full perspective this is fine  
> (owl:DatatypeProperty is a subproperty of owl:ObjectProperty in OWL Full  
> [4]), but for OWL DL this is a problem. Part of the problem is that OWL  
> forces you to make a choice between either object or datatype property,  
> and we do not want to force this choice upon SKOS users. My proposal  
> would be to follow a "least-commitment" strategy and change skos:note to  
> be just an rdf:Property. This does not make it OWL-DL compliant yet, but  
> allows people who want to use it within OWL DL to add a triple with the  
> required OWL property type. So instead of being OWL-DL inconsistent it  
> becomes OWL-DL incomplete.

I could live with this, but am interested to hear feedback from
others.

> [[
>   use of rdf:value (example)
>   suggestion: don't use rdf:value
> ]]
>
> This refers to example 25 [5]. I note that rdf:value has no particular  
> semantics and is mainly a usage convention (and in practice is actually  
> not used a lot). I suggest to change the example to use a user-defined  
> property to refer to the value.

I would rather we agree on a property to use by convention to provide
the textual content of note when using this pattern -- e.g. rdfs:label
or rdfs:comment would work for me. It would be a shame to end up with
10 different user-defined properties floating around all being used
for the same thing.

> I also suggest (but this is independent  
> of the OWL WG comment), to add another property statement to illustrate  
> why this pattern is used at all.

Good idea.

> Whether this also implies changes to the Primer I'm not sure. We may  
> have the pattern with the blank node to have two variations: one with a  
> custom value property and one with rdf:value.

Not sure I understand your suggestion here.

> I also note that we use rdf:value a lot in the namespace file [6] to  
> specify change notes. My proposal is to drop these change notes 
> altogether.

I could live with this.

Cheers,

Alistair.

-- 
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 Friday, 10 October 2008 16:33:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 October 2008 16:33:09 GMT