W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2016

Re: S36 implementation details

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:29:13 +0100
Message-ID: <569B6CF9.5080803@few.vu.nl>
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Lars, Sean,


On 1/15/16 6:37 PM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 5:37 PM, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 15:42, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> That's exact.
>>
>> If you look at the source [1] you will see that S36, along with a number of other
>> conditions are simply represented using comments. Note that there is also a
>> “prune” of the SKOS vocab [2] which has further axioms removed in order to
>> provide an ontology that fits within the OWL1 DL sublanguage and can then be
>> used by applications that wanted to live within OWL DL. As Antoine points out,
>> this was all in the context of OWL 1.
>
> Do you think it would be possible (and worth the effort) to make it OWL 2-compatible?
>


At this point, I'd be tempted to just wait for SHACL [1] to be stabilized, and then see what is best. I suspect that something that allows one to not strictly follow the open-world semantics basing OWL may be a more deisrable breakthrough.
That said, if someone wants to have an attempt at an OWL2 representation of SKOS it wouldn't hurt. I'm actually a bit surprised I couldn't find a trace of an earlier attempt...

Best,
Antoine

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2016 10:29:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:48 UTC