- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:05:10 -0500
- To: public-esw-thes <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Cc: fred@fgiasson.com, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, Alistair Miles <alimanfoo@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
The following issue regarding the formal representation of the "DL prune" of SKOS has been raised by Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>: The main problem is that the skos-core-dl version is using the same ontology IRI as skos-code. Theoretically, there is no issue in itself, but practically, in a OWL 2 environment, there are a few issues related to this situation. As noted here [1]: "If an ontology has an ontology IRI but no version IRI, then a different ontology with the same ontology IRI but no version IRI /SHOULD NOT/ exist." Obviously, the current skos-dl ontology is breaking this rule. While this new ontology versioning mechanism is part of OWL 2 and was introduced after the last SKOS recommendation, I think that this rule should be applied to OWL 1.1 ontologies as well, without being explicit in the specification. The problem is that breaking this rule does affect some current implementations of OWL 2 in different libraries/software. One good example of this is with the OWLAPI and Protege 4.1 (at least) as explained here [2] and check Timothy's answer [3]. I don't know what the exact problem is, but I guess that it is due to the fact that the OWL API does have a few built-in understandings of the skos-core ontology IRI which clash with the imported skos-dl version of the ontology. Since the ontology IRI is the same, then it uses the skos-core ontology instead of the skos-dl. I can also imagine that other frameworks/systems could behave unpredictibly because of this broken assumption. So, I don't know what can be done, if anything. But certainly that changing the ontology IRI for the skos-dl ontology could help a lot. I am not sure you would be willing to add any OWL 2 constructs into this version of the ontology, but I would suggest you consider using the owl:versionIRI predicate to specify the specific version of that ontology. May I suggest something like: owl:versionIRI<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/dl#>. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Ontology_IRI_and_Version_IRI [2] http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/SKOS-labels-annotation-vs-datatype-properties-tt1840259.html#a1840259 [3] http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/SKOS-labels-annotation-vs-datatype-properties-tt1840259.html#a1840495 -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 18:05:54 UTC