W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2003

RE: NEW issue 6 - defining semantic relationships

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:07:38 -0000
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C04943FE9@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Dave Reynolds' <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

OK, so shall we have


<soks:semanticRelation>
^
|
<soks:broader>
^                        ^                           ^
|                        |                           |
<soks:broaderGeneric>    <soks:broaderInstantive>    <soks:broaderPartOf>

and

<soks:broaderGeneric>   <owl:equivalentProperty>   <rdfs:subClassOf>.

<soks:broaderInstantive>   <owl:equivalentProperty>   <rdf:type>.

Any objections???

Al.

> > 
> > ... would be good for thesaurus-specific applications.  
> However, here is
> > where we start treading on the toes of RDF RDFS and OWL.  
> The property
> > <thes:broaderGeneric> would be semantically equivalent to 
> <rdfs:subClassOf>,
> > and the property <thes:broaderInstantive> would be 
> semantically equivalent
> > to <rdf:type>.  How do we handle this kind of overlap? 
> 
> I'm not sure there is a problem here. If BG and BI are truly 
> equivalent to 
> rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type then just define them as 
> equivalent using 
> either owl:equivalentProperty or a pair of rdfs:subPropertyOf 
> relations. 
> That's the beauty of RDF - open world, multiple inheritance, 
> cycles allowed.
> 
> Then a thesaurus processor could take an RDFS file and realise, for 
> example, that an rdfs:subClassOf relation implies thes:broader.
> 
> Dave
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:07:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:08 UTC