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

Re: some thoughts about the OWL WG comments

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:33:51 +0100
Message-Id: <269E1509-5305-4476-A1A0-4CF44649BBE8@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On 13 Oct 2008, at 17:42, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> 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- 
> 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...


Are you not convinced because we haven't stated it clearly enough? Or  
not convinced by the notion that skos:notation might be used with a  
plain literal? The suggestion is that we temper the original wording:

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- 

which states that typed literals are used for skos:notation (but note  
that there are no semantic conditions, so this would just be  
convention anyway).

> By the way cc Norman Gray, as this conflicts a bit with what I've  
> previously written to him in [2].

It would be very useful to have Norman's comments on this.


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 08:34:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:54 UTC