- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:32:13 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, danbri@danbri.org
Hi Antoine, Dan,
> - the need for annotating owl:Class is not obvious for me (typical
> thesauri in Cultural Heritage do not pretend to be ontologies). Perhaps
I think Alistair's idea was to enable usage of SKOS properties to
describe OWL classes in proper ontologies.
There is a problem in OWL DL with recording different kinds of labels
(e.g. which to use for display or not, which is the vernacular label,
etc.) because rdfs:label is an AnnotationProperty, which cannot be
specialized with rdfs:subPropertyOf. However, this would be the
preferred way to maintain semantic interoperability (you can always
dumb down to rdfs:label).
SKOS might fill this gap, but it can only do so if SKOS proeprties are
not restricted to skos:Concept and are NOT AnnotationProperties (else
they could not be specialized themselves as might be expected). But if
they are to be applied to _classes_ in DL, they MUST be
AnnotationProperties...
Dilemma, dilemma...
Mark.
--
Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 10:32:56 UTC