- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:01:14 +0100
- To: Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com>
- Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 23:01:48 UTC
Hello Stephane The question makes sense of course, although the initial focus of VOAF was on ontology-like vocabularies. Instances of both owl:Ontology and skos:ConceptScheme could be instances of voaf:Vocabulary. Actually we could define voaf:OWLVocabulary as subclass of both owl:Ontology and voaf:Vocabulary voaf:SKOSVocabulary as subclass of both skos:ConceptScheme and voaf:Vocabulary then restrict the domain of voaf:classNumber and voaf:propertyNumber to the former, and add properties such as conceptNumber to the latter. I put that on the backburner, but it's clearly one the many possible extensions. Bernard 2011/1/17 Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com> > Bernard, > > Thanks for your answer. Another question I was wondering: Can we extend the > VOAF ontology to describe SKOS taxonomies ? Does this question make sense to > you ? In the case of SKOS, we have only the notion of concepts not classes > and properties. > -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary & Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com ---------------------------------------------------- Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: http://www.mondeca.com Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com ----------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 23:01:48 UTC