- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:32:25 +0100
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Thanks a lot, Osma! This is really good to have. And in a way confirms the interest of wait-and-seeing until we can start playing with SHACL / RDF Shapes (arguably closer to SPIN). To come back to Simon's comment. Yes OWL2 is good, but having an OWL1 representation already allows to use SKOS in OWL2 context (i.e. it specifies which classes and properties are in the SKOS vocabulary). What we're missing then is a handful of contraints from the SKOS model, which OWL2 may anyway not allow one to capture in the way most people would need them (i.e. in a 'closed-world' manner). Best, Antoine On 1/18/16 8:18 AM, Osma Suominen wrote: > On 17/01/16 12:29, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> I'm actually a bit surprised I couldn't find a trace of an earlier >> attempt... > > Are you perhaps referring to Paul Hermans' series of blog posts from 2010 where he attempted to express some of the SKOS ICs using OWL2 and SPIN? His conclusion at the time was that most of them couldn't be represented in OWL2. > > The blog is long gone now but the posts are still available thanks to the Internet Archive: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20130522054521/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/aaad2/Integrity_constraints_in_SKOS_part_1_.html > https://web.archive.org/web/20130522051358/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/55d41/Integrity_constraints_in_SKOS_part_2.html > https://web.archive.org/web/20130522044951/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/bfa21/Integrity_Constraints_in_SKOS_part_3.html > https://web.archive.org/web/20130522033512/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/0a621/SKOS_part_4_property_chains.html > > There is also some commentary on the topic on Holger Knublauch's blog (obviously promoting SPIN): > > http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-owl-fails.html > > -Osma >
Received on Monday, 18 January 2016 07:33:00 UTC