- From: NJ Rogers, Learning and Research Technology <Nikki.Rogers@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:36:12 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi >> Nice use case. >> >> But don't you want to use 'skos-map:exactMatch' for this? > > That feels a bit like declaring things about their vocabulary. If I say > that my:A skosM:exactMatch their:B and their:C then the explanation is > that you can substitute one for the other. This is transitive, so I am > saying you can substitute B for C in queries and statements. > > Whereas if I have skos:denotes to say they describe something that has an > unspecified sameness, but doesn't authorise direct substitution, then I > can describe queries that should work across skos:denotes relations (one > by one if I choose to differentiate things that don't make sense across > the two models), without merging the two graphs. > > cheers > > Chaals > So, instead of using skos:denotes why can't one of 'skos-map:majorMatch' or 'skos-map:minorMatch' or 'skos-map:broadMatch' or 'skos-map:narrowMatch' be used? Apologies, but whilst I fully see the reason for the separation between SKOS and OWL, and I (think) I understand scenarios where they meaningfully 'overlap', I fail to see *any use case* that actually demands use of a skos:denotes. I thought we had the need for links between SKOS and OWL covered by: broader-instantive's correspondance with type, broader-generic's corresondance with subclassof and the skos-map:XXXMatch properties (which I assume have a range of rdf:Resource? i.e. can have a range of owl:Class) + provenance tracking wherever necessary I thought the only argument left would be about whether to delete broader-instantive & broader-generic from SKOS-mapping and just advise use of their RDFS equivalents instead. Or is this debate really about the fact that we want to stick some machinery capable of SKOS<->OWL stuff in SKOS-Core right now, so that SKOS-Core stands in its own right allowing us to tackle SKOS-Mapping separately? I must have been left behind somewhere along the line ..... :-/ Nikki >>> -----Original Message----- >>> Subject: [proposal] skos:denotes - a use case? > ... >>> Sidar doesn't have the authority to change the W3C glossary. >>> We feel it would >>> be a little anti-social to simply publish RDF saying that one >>> concept defined >>> by W3C is the same as another one. > ---------------------- NJ Rogers, Technical Researcher (Semantic Web Applications Developer) Institute for Learning and Research Technology (ILRT) Email:nikki.rogers@bristol.ac.uk Tel: +44(0)117 9287096 (Direct) Tel: +44(0)117 9287193 (Office)
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 10:35:53 UTC