- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:56:15 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
The "Use Case" page https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/SKOS_Constraints triggered a response from Peter, and I suggest we continue that topic here in email form. Peter stated: "I would argue that these are no more constraints than much of the rest of SKOS. Instead they should be handled by the ontology. Of course, OWL does not have the capabilities to state the above condition, so the only recourse is to use something like below. The larger question is whether these sorts of situations should be considered to be central use cases for the Working Group's solution." 1) I do not understand what you mean - "they should be handled by the ontology". That's exactly what I am trying to do: to have the ontology contain enough information to enforce those constraints, so that tools can use a generic formalization instead of having to re-code the prose for every application. 2) You ask whether these scenarios should be considered by the WG, and my response is a strong YES - stating such constraints is very much a goal of this WG, overcoming the limitations of current languages. We should certainly not stop only because OWL doesn't support these scenarios. I wonder how we can decide on this question so that we can make progress. Shall we have a vote to see what people think? Thanks, Holger
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 04:56:50 UTC