W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2004

Re: domain/range for skos props

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:18:42 +0100
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-id: <PM-EV.20041021171842.7C1BD.1.1D@bodkin.nuigalway.ie>

On 21.10.2004 13:01:53, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>Relating back to Benjamin's initial point: if we decide that
>skos:broader/narrower/related should only be used with skos:Concepts, then
>this behaviour seems appropriate; however if we decide that it's OK to use
>skos:broader/narrower/related with any type of resource, then this behaviour
>seems inappropriate (??).
>An alternative would be to remove domain/range statements on
>skos:semanticRelation, but to introduce OWL restrictions on the skos:Concept
>class, e.g.
><rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Concept">
>  <rdfs:subClassOf>
>    <owl:Restriction>
>      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#broader" />
>      <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Concept" />
>    </owl:Restriction>
>  </rdfs:subClassOf
>This means that skos:broader/narrower/related could be used with any type of
>resource, but when used on a skos:Concept must point to another
>skos:Concept.  (Is this the type of constraint we want?)
Not sure. I heard that restrictions should primarily be used to infer class
memberships by looking at the props, instead of using them to define
constraints on explicitly typed individuals, but I may well be wrong (or
A basic thing I like about SKOS is that I could easily understand and implement
the core part of it. so adding complexity to the spec may have a negative
effect on its success/deployment (?). Although I'd really like to use skos
terms on classes, SKOS' ease of use could be more important (broadening the
domain of skos:example and skos:definition, i.e. the datatype properties,
is probably ok, I'd assume).
Is there another (indirect) way to create a link between rdfs classes and skos
concepts, that could be used as an alternative, or a property with
domain=rdfs:Class and range=skos:Concept?

Dunno, but is this a topic the SWBPD WG's vocabulary management TF could help
clarify? I'm currently trying to build support for both skos and rdfs in my
vocab editor, but I don't know (yet) how to link from terms to skos concepts. (I
can simply add skos:prefLabel to classes but does that really allow me to
identify the related concept?) I didn't read all of the available skos
material, though. maybe I just have to read more carefully.


Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 100
45145 Essen, Germany

>> >Al.
>> >
>> >---
>> >Alistair Miles
>> >Research Associate
>> >CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> >Building R1 Room 1.60
>> >Fermi Avenue
>> >Chilton
>> >Didcot
>> >Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>> >United Kingdom
>> >Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>> >Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440

Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 16:18:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:16 UTC