- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:59:21 -0000
- To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
The idea is that the skos-mapping constructs are a more convenient and
intuitive shorthand for more formal set based constructs that could be
expressed in OWL.
So for example, you may consider that statements such as ...
<soks:Concept rdf:about="#A">
<soks-map:broaderMatch>
<soks-map:AND>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="#B"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="#C"/>
</soks-map:AND>
</soks-map:broaderMatch>
</soks:Concept>
... are in fact a convenient shorthand for the statements ...
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#A"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:parseType="resource">
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="collection">
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#B"/>
</owl:Restriction>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/>
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#C"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Restriction>
For further discussion of this problem, see the extended writeup of open
design issues on the SWAD RDF Thesaurus wiki (Issue 9 - Inter-thesaurus
mapping) <http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfThesaurus>.
What do you think of this?
Yours,
Alistair.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov]
> Sent: 26 November 2003 18:59
> To: A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: SKOS-Mapping comments and labels added
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Comments and labels have been added to the SKOS-Mapping vocabulary.
> >
> ><http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/2003/11/21-skos-mapping>
>
> This file contains AND, OR, and NOT properties which mimic OWL
> vocabulary elements: owl:intersectionOf, owl:unionOf, and
> owl:complementOf respectively. Why invent new terms?
>
> -Evan
>
> Evan K. Wallace
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> NIST
>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2003 08:59:29 UTC