- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:56:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: 'Dave Reynolds' <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
If they really are the same thing, why not just stop using them, since the rdfs: stuff is likely to be understood by tools already? cheers Chaals On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > >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 >> > Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 21:57:14 UTC