- From: spchamp <spchamp@me.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I have some questions considering SKOS condition S37: S37 skos:Collection is disjoint with each of skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. [1] I don't wish to criticize the rationale that, as I understand, must be represented in that condition. I presume that it may have something to do with limiting the DL expressivity of SKOS-based ontologies, for purpose of efficiency in inference systems - is that even close, though? I'm not certain if that's exactly it. If it's even "close enough", I doubt that that could be all there is to it. I understand that there must be a rationale to it, though it was not denoted directly in [1]. My question arises as a matter of a concern that I would like to present for review: (1) That there may be a class of Concept defined that would *not* be naturally disjoint with a class of Collection. Secondly, on that basis: (2) Furthermore, that a Concept Scheme could be viewed as a collection of concepts. (Is my rationale too naive, in that?) I would like to illustrate point #1 with a matter of classification in the arts - namely, that the concept of Modern Art may be defined as being semantically contained within the concept of Art (and that the concepts, Surrealism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, and so on, those may be defined as contained within the concept of Modern Art, in turn) . I consider that the concept of Modern Art does not exist independent to the concept of Art, and that it is therefore appropriate to say that the concept of Modern Art is contained in the concept of Art. I guess that it could be said to represent a mode of container membership. I would like to be able to express that sense of "conceptual container" and semantic entailment, in an ontology. I suppose I'm simply not certain of whether I could represent it in SKOS, however, given that condition S37. In addition to that I would be intrigued to understand the principled basis of condition S37, I would like to ask a question to the details of the matter. Given an OWL class that would be defined as a subclass of both skos:Concept and skos:Container, would that class be invalid onto SKOS? (As far as my concern #2 as noted, I think it's essentially covered within #1 there.) This mailing list was denoted as it being available for discussion of SKOS design and development[2]. I presume that this may be the most appropriate forum for these questions, inasmuch. Thank you. Cheers. -- Sean Champ [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L3424 [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mail -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/A-question-about-SKOS-condition-S37-tp33663211p33663211.html Sent from the w3.org - public-esw-thes mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 06:55:08 UTC