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

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

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:41:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4794AF21.6010803@talis.com>
To: Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>
CC: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, moat-dev@groupe.google.com

Alexandre Passant wrote:
> Hi,
> On Jan 21, 2008 12:22 PM, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> I see what you mean, and it sounds ok theorically.
> But in that case, using a skos:Concept in the ontology but telling to
> users "use any URI you want" won't make sens I think. That's better to
> tell them "use an URI" with an rdf:Resource range imho.
> Moreover, some tools use domain / range of properties to filter
> queries (eg: in ontology-based forms).
> So using a skos:Concept may restrict the URIs to be retrieved.
Such a tool would be closing the world and thus not actually a semantic 
web tool. If you want to force the object to be a URI the range would 
have to be a typed literal. Having a range of rdfs:Resource people are 
free to use anything, including b-nodes an literals. Personally I don't 
see why "An abstract idea or notion; a unit of thought." (definition of 
skos:Concept) is too restrictive. I think a tool doing inferencing can 
safely deduct (and thus should be allowed to) that the object is an 
abstract idea.
>> 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?
> In case I have my own ontology with a main Class that is
> owl:disjointWith skos:Concept, because I explicitely do not want
> people to use broader / narrower links between instances of this
> class, it will fail.
> Ok, this is just an example, but this is the kind of use case I want to avoid.
Could you be more concretely what class would not be suitable for those 
other skos-properties?


Reto Bachmann-Gmür
Talis Information Limited

Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
Shared InovationTM
Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd.
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 14:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:02 UTC