- From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:51:18 +0200
- To: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Bernard Vatant wrote: > I will keep agnostic, to begin with, on the question of knowing if > antonymy as the dark side of synonymy. But I would like to point that in > any case, technically it does not make sense to use "owl:disjointWith" > property to link two skos:Concept(s), simply because a skos:Concept is/ > en principe/ not a class (in any case not an owl:Class), and > owl:disjointWith is used to link two owl:Class to express that they have > no common instance. Of course in OWL-Full nothing can prevent you to > declare that a skos:Concept is also a owl:Class, but the logical > consequences of such a declaration are unpredictable :-) Furthermore antonyms are not always disjoint. A book on war and piece could be indexed with both antonym concepts "war" and "piece". In SKOS antonyms can easily be encoded with skos:related or a subproperty of this relation. Greetings, Jakob -- Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 07:49:52 UTC