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

Re: some thoughts about the OWL WG comments

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:42:35 +0200
Message-ID: <48F37A7B.9080004@few.vu.nl>
To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>

Hi Alistair,

I still don't get it: we say that skos:notation works with typed 
literal, as in [1]

> This property is used to assign a notation to a concept as a typed 
> literal [RDF-CONCEPTS 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#ref-RDF-CONCEPTS>].

But in fact for the most common case (a concept having one notation), 
skos:notation would be used with plain literals? I'm really not 
convinced by what we are going to propose here...
By the way cc Norman Gray, as this conflicts a bit with what I've 
previously written to him in [2].

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#notations
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0060.html

> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 09:43:15AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is something I don't understand here: if we do not need to use  
>> custom user-defined datatypes when one needs only one notation, what  
>> should be used in that case then? No datatype?
>>     
>
> A plain literal with no language tag, I guess...
>
> <foo> skos:notation "bar" .
>
> Al.
>
>   
>> Antoine
>>
>>     
>>> Hi Guus,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 04:03:19PM +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> NOTATIONS
>>>>
>>>> [[
>>>>   The OWL WG notes that one portion of SKOS (Notations) uses custom
>>>> datatypes.  Although these seem to be benign, because RDF and OWL allow
>>>> extra datatypes, the use of these datatypes is not likely to be
>>>> supported by many tools.  The presence of extra datatypes may cause
>>>> difficulties in some tools, which may just reject SKOS documents that
>>>> have these datatypes.
>>>> ]]
>>>>
>>>> Sean already pointed out that we can indicate in the document that   
>>>> user-defined datatypes are only explicitly needed when one needs   
>>>> multiple notations (so only in Sec. ). In addition I would like to 
>>>> add  the tools should not reject SKOS documents containing 
>>>> user-defined  datatypes, see the OWL reference section on datatype 
>>>> reasoning [2], in  particular the last sentence:
>>>>
>>>> [[
>>>>   Unrecognized datatypes should be treated in the same way as   
>>>> unsupported datatypes.
>>>> ]]
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> This approach seems sound to me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Alistair.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>     
>
>   
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 16:44:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 October 2008 16:44:03 GMT