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 Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:27:32 +0100
Cc: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, "'Simon Jupp'" <simon.jupp@manchester.ac.uk>, <steve.richard@azgs.az.gov>, "'Guillame Duclaux'" <Guillaume.Duclaux@csiro.au>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <Jacqueline.Githaiga@csiro.au>
Message-Id: <FC2CD79F-D717-4703-ADA7-732484A78E94@gmail.com>
To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> Absolutely. Working with the underlying RDF graph rather than its  
> concrete serialization is (IMO) the right thing to do, and SPARQL,  
> rather than XSLT will give you that.

XSLT is a hammer from an alternate universe where the fundamental  
particle of matter is the thumb :-P

In most cases, there is a Class whose instances correspond to the  
Things which would be mentioned in a Doculope* labeled with a Concept;  
however the Concepts and the Classes usually want to be different  
entities, and the mapping seem to be easier to describe in SWRL-DL  
rather than OWL.  This is a situation where distinguishing BTG and BTP  
separately helps a lot.   BTI can be handled trivially using roles, as  
long as the end point of the chain is Object, not Data.

I've been trying this for KOSS (using Attempto Controlled English) to  
try and get more precise semantics for precombined and subdivided LCSH  
headings. Things seem to make more sense if you treat the inferred A- 
box as a T-box for an actual ontology.  This makes a lot of sense if  
you treat the domain of interpretation of SKOS as the Doculopes, not  
the underlying Things.

Simon // Back in England for the high holidays.  Isn't it still BBQ  

* Doculopes are documents a la Buckland. 
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 21:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:57 UTC