- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:12:03 -0400
- To: "John F. Madden" <john.madden@me.com>
- Cc: Kevin Doyle <kdoyle@teranode.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <29af5e2d0905220612r6f275c10u6f26587a2f84cadf@mail.gmail.com>
missed a "not" On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>wrote: > Please consider coordinating with the OWL WG if you plan to pose and answer > this question in a FAQ. I don't think the below answer is particularly > accurate or helpful. For one thing, RDF and OWL have model theoretic > semantics, but this does ^^not^^ > imply the semantics are extensional. For example, we can have have c1 > equivalentClass c2 but c1 differentIndividual c2. I have further criticisms, > but would rather discuss them in the context of putting together an answer > that does justice to the two efforts and their aims. > > Also, there are some actual differences in the semantics that should be > mentioned, as SKOS has some semantic conditions that can not be expressed in > OWL or RDF, such as S14: A resource has no more than one value of > skos:prefLabel per language tag, which can't be expressed in OWL 1 or OWL > 2, or S12: The rdfs:range of each of skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and > skos:hiddenLabel is the class of RDF plain literals, which can't be > expressed in OWL 1, but probably will be able to be expressed in OWL 2. > -Alan > http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/ruttenberg/ > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:47 PM, John F. Madden <john.madden@me.com> > wrote: > > Two possible reasons, by my lights: > > (1) If the goal is mapping legacy terminologies into an RDF dialect: > > RDF/OWL has a formal, model theoretic, extensional semantics. Most legacy > > terminologies have an informal semantics that is entirely intensional. > > Putting them directly into RDF/OWL imputes to them an ability to support > a > > kind of inferencing that they were never intended to support. The result > is > > liable to be unexpected or undesirable inferences; or in other cases, > > failure to entail inferences that one would imagine to be natural > > consequences. > > SKOS, on the other hand, doesn't treat the legacy terms as classes with > > extensions (as RDF/OWL does). Yet SKOS still gives one a vocabulary to > talk > > about the most important intensional meanings that such terminologies > tend > > to use (notions like narrower, broader, related, etc.). > > (All this is much better said than I ever could in the SKOS Primer.) > > > > > > > > (2) If the goal is to model a set of terms de novo: > > For the same reasons as stated in (1), SKOS provides a way to depict > > informal, notional relations among ideas without having to buy into the > more > > rigorous RDF/OWL semantic model, which may be too constraining for > certain > > kinds of modeling (for example, the more freewheeling kinds exemplified > by > > "concept-mapping", "mind-mapping"; or the type of intuitive models that > one > > tends to get from domain experts). > > John > > > > On May 20, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Kevin Doyle wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I have a question I would like to put on the SKOS FAQ, because I don't > know > > the answer. Also, this is the first place that I looked for the answer. > > Why SKOS and not OWL? Or maybe to put the question another way, what > are > > the advantages of using SKOS over OWL? > > Kevin S. Doyle > > Client Solution Manager > > Teranode Corp. > > www.teranode.com > > Tel: +1-617-710-5155 > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 13:13:05 UTC