- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:34:32 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On 18 April 2011 16:24, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Re. cmo:represents and cmo:representedBy, I think there was a kind of > consensus on this list prior to your proposal, as Alistair is hinting at: > using foaf:focus [1] for links between the SKOS concept of the "thing" (and > the "thing" refered to in FOAF could perfectly be an (OWL) class such as > vacoule or lytic_vacoule). > > Acknowledging this, any CMO solution should be aligned with it (either by > re-using that property or mapping to it via RDFS/OWL property axioms). Or > make a serious case against foaf:focus! IMHO foaf:focus works well for specific named entities; it works less well for classes, and I have been wondering how best to address this. The difference is in the pragmatics of whether we say that foaf:focus is a functional property. If the SKOS concept under consideration is #fido_the_dog, then its foaf:focus would be Fido, a Dog. And if there were two or three URIs around (dbpedia, freebase, VIAF, ...) for that self-same entity, they're all owl:sameAs each other. If the SKOS concept were #dogs, ... we could still use foaf:focus to point to (various different) classes corresponding to the class of things that are dogs. But having an implied sameAs amongst them all is likely to be less useful, less accurate, and more contentious. Since it is tempting to declare foaf:focus functional, this would likely mean nudging out the class use case to a companion property, eg. focusClass. Or maybe there's an OWL2 idiom that can accomodate having it both ways... Dan > [1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 14:35:03 UTC