W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [Linking-open-data] [ANN] MOAT

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:22:58 +0000
Message-ID: <47948EA2.6030705@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org, moat-dev@groupe.google.com

Alexandre Passant wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 12:36 AM, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Let's look at:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/img/ex-sub.pn
>>
>> Yeah, so instead of a foaf:Document we would have a moat:Meaning. And
>> instead of using a moat:concept, we would use a skos:subject.
>>
>> This could make sense intuitively. Would have to check further if it
>> really does.
> The problem here is that, again, the skos:subject range is a
> skos:Concept, which will not allow people to use existing URIs that
> are not defined as skos:Concept

Not sure I agree. It means that any URI you use in this way can be 
inferred to also be a skos:Concept. It may not have been labelled as 
such in the original source but that doesn't necessarily cause a 
problem, open world assumption and all that.

It *could* lead to a inconsistency if there are some conflicting axioms 
but that seems somehow unlikely. Are there any specific examples of a 
resource one might want to use as in this way where inferring they were 
also a skos:Concept would lead to an inconsistency?

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 12:23:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:20 GMT