- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:07:38 -0000
- 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