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

On Sep 14, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Simon Cox wrote:

> 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.

Simon,

TopBraid Composer [1] (including the Free Edition) may better suit  
your needs, and will not make random changes to your SKOS files. It is  
a true RDF *and* OWL editor, and we (and our customers) use it for  
SKOS editing on a daily basis.

Holger

[1] http://www.topquadrant.com/products/TB_Composer.html

>
> 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
> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox
>
> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> JRC: 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 http://groups.google.com/group/skos-dev/browse_thread/thread/1b37afd209da564d?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.
>
> steve
>
>
>
> -------- 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 <simon.jupp@gmail.com>
> Reply-To:	skos-dev@googlegroups.com
> To:	skos-dev <skos-dev@googlegroups.com>
> References:	<d8e4f408-dc49-49e9-be28-e2c4ad9c11cf@i18g2000pro.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.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Aug 19, 2:26 am, smrAZGS <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 skos-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/skos-dev?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen M. Richard
> Section Chief, Geoinformatics
> Arizona Geological Survey
> 416 W. Congress St., #100
> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
>
> Phone:
> Office: (520) 209-4127
> Reception: (520) 770-3500
> FAX: (520) 770-3505
>
> email: steve.richard@azgs.az.gov