- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:58:16 +0100
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Renato, Yes you assume well. And the human-readable definitions may not be ideal for every possible usage of the concepts as properties. But well, I've seen worse in published ontologies of OWL classes and properties, frankly :-) Cheers, Antoine On 31/01/2024 10:37, Renato Iannella wrote: > > Thanks Antoine…that is very interesting that the LOC has defined SKOS Concepts for OWL ObjectProperties. > > I was interested in how they would use these in practice... > > If you look at “camera operator” : https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cop.html <https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cop.html> > > I assume there are axioms like: ex:subject loc:cop ex:object > > But I find the definition (eg "A person who operates a motion picture camera to film a moving image resource”) does not seem to lend itself to being a “relationship” in the axiom… > > Cheers….R > > >> On 31 Jan 2024, at 18:41, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion! I think it captures the most essential points. >> >> If I may add, wrt OWL2, indeed it was formally finalized after we had to wrap up the SKOS specs. There are more details about SKOS and OWL in sections 5.2 and 5.4 of this wrap-up paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.05.001 >> >> Also, maybe a relevant blog post from a user back then is https://www.mkbergman.com/944/skos-now-interoperates-with-owl-2/ >> >> Finally I could note that Renato's example can also apply to properties, not only to classes: the Library of Congress has a vocabulary of concepts that are dually defined as (OWL) properties: >> https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators.html >> >> Best, >> >> Antoine >
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2024 13:59:09 UTC