RE: SKOS to RDFS/OWL ontology mapping

Hi Alistair

> > _:node1  	a:SKOS_representation		eg:People
> > _:node1	     a:RDFS_representation		foaf:Person
> >
>
> (Playing devils advocate - I'm very grateful for this discussion :) ...
>
> In what way are the above statements any different from e.g.
>
>   eg:People skos:it foaf:Person.

Not sure what this one means, since I don't know about skos:it property :((
But in any case it does not say the same thing, IMO

> Don't they both say exactly the same thing?

I don't think so and will try to explain why ...

In your example, maybe you need some assumption on skos:it Domain and Range (or are they
left open?)
Second, you put some semantics on skos:it, right?
In any case foaf:Person is considered the value of some property of eg:People. IOW, you
assert some direct relationship between those resources.

In the blank node example, I don't express any direct relationship between the resources,
because IMO actually there is none. They both are representaions of some "ineffable
subject" which might live beyond/before any representation, but on which existence we
should keep agnostic they are both "fingers pointing at the moon", but somehow indicating
it. As I posted an hour ago on my blog, I came this morning to this surprising conclusion
: "subjects have no identity, only representations have one". Note that I say subject here
to refer to what TM folks used to call "non-addressable subject". So blank nodes are the
best way to "capture" implicitly this subject without identifying it to a resource, which,
I agree with what you wrote a few posts ago, would lead us to recursive definitions.

Moreover, the blank node option allows you to gather as many resources as you want, be
they in a formal scheme or not.

_:node1  	     a:SKOS_representation		eg:People
_:node1	     a:RDFS_representation		foaf:Person
_:node1	     a:Wikipedia_definition		http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person


Is that clearer?

Cheers

Bernard

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 11:13:22 UTC