W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2009

RE: [Fwd: Re: Serialization skos:Concept vs owl:Thing vs rdf..]

From: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:51:35 +0200
To: <steve.richard@azgs.az.gov>, "'Guillame Duclaux'" <Guillaume.Duclaux@csiro.au>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F1412ABBFEDC48F4A037647F875F3A8D@H07.jrc.it>
I guess Protege uses OWL as its internal model, so this kind of behaviour,
though annoying, is to be expected. 
What this points to is that the world needs a RDF or SKOS editor that does
not gratuitously promote everything up to OWL. 
Promoting everything to OWL kinda misses the point of having SKOS, which is
explicitly for applications that do not need to go all the way to OWL. 
I'll forward this to the W3C SKOS list, since it is a follow-up to the
discussion we triggered in June. 

Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 
 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/




From: Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard@azgs.az.gov] 
Sent: Monday, 14 September 2009 19:30
To: Simon Cox; Guillame Duclaux
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Serialization skos:Concept vs owl:Thing vs rdf..]

Simon, Gilly--
I noticed that Protege is randomly encoding as either skos:concept or
owl:thing with rdf:type=&skos;Concept. I posted a question on the skos-dev
list, here's simon's response (full discussion at
d?hl=en). Someone posted an xslt to get rid of the owl:things. Basically its
a Protege issue--what I started with is all skos.


-------- Original Message -------- 
Subject: 	Re: Serialization skos:Concept vs owl:Thing vs rdf..	
Date: 	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:48:45 -0700 (PDT)	
From: 	Simon Jupp  <mailto:simon.jupp@gmail.com> <simon.jupp@gmail.com>

Reply-To: 	skos-dev@googlegroups.com	
To: 	skos-dev  <mailto:skos-dev@googlegroups.com>

I don't see why it matters, when you say unclean, do you mean for the

human eye? Can you give an example where this might be a problem? It

is a little redundant, but it shouldn't be a problem for any tools

that consume RDF/XML.

Looking at your files I do see that the RDF/XML rendering seems to be

a little inconsistent. I will speak to the OWL API developer to find

out why this is.



On Aug 19, 2:26 am, smrAZGS  <mailto:steve.rich...@azgs.az.gov>
<steve.rich...@azgs.az.gov> wrote:

> I've noticed the same issue. Converting to OWL doesn't seem like a

> solution, since the point of a SKOS encoding is to use elements in

> the  SKOS namespace. I recognize that skos:concept and owl:thing with

> rdf:type=&skos;Concept are logically equivalent, but isn't is

> problematic if you're trying to automate use of the document if the

> encoding might use one of two equivalent syntax approaches in the same

> document- it just doesn't seem 'clean'. If a document is supposed to

> be a SKOS encoding it seems like there should be some way to ensure

> that it uses SKOS elements, not owl?


> steve


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"skos-dev" group.

To post to this group, send email to skos-dev@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

For more options, visit this group at



Stephen M. Richard

Section Chief, Geoinformatics

Arizona Geological Survey

416 W. Congress St., #100

Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA


Office: (520) 209-4127

Reception: (520) 770-3500 

FAX: (520) 770-3505

email: steve.richard@azgs.az.gov
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 06:52:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:56 UTC