- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:40:41 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I will almost certainly be sending in this review. It might be a good
idea to have the WG determine whether to have this (slightly modified)
as a WG review as well. Note that the deadline for reviews is 3
October (2008).
peter
PS: I sent almost all of this review to the WG a while ago, but I don't
think that it was discussed.
Review of SKOS Reference last call document
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/
The avoidance of formality in the reference is disturbing. It would have
been much better to have the definitions in some machine-readable format
as much as possible. I understand that there is an RDF document for
this purpose, at http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos, but there is no mention
of this RDF document in the reference document. I would find it very
much better to have the RDF or OWL (partial) definitions for the SKOS
vocabulary in this document.
I have performed an analysis (from the reference document, not from the
RDF document) of the bits of SKOS that are not in OWL 1 DL. For those
bits that are not in OWL 2 DL, I have suggestions on how SKOS could be
changed to make it fit within OWL 2 DL, where I could figure this out.
I note that much of the bits that are not OWL 2 DL are in the examples.
Section Language What bit / Suggestions to put into OWL 2 DL
skos:Concept OWL 2 DL individual/class/property punning (examples)
Concept Schemes OWL 2 DL individual/ontology "punning" (example)
Lexical Labels OWL 2 Full subproperty of rdfs:label
suggestion: don't use rdfs:label
OWL 2 DL property disjointness
not OWL axiom schema for unique prefLabel
suggestion: include qualified
cardinality restrictions only
for languages used (defined using
datatype restrictions)
OWL 2 DL individual / class punning (example)
OWL 2 Full objects as values of data property (example)
suggestion: don't do this
Notations extra datatypes various extra datatypes
suggestion: sort of in OWL 1 DL
already, but unlikely to be supported
by all tools
Documentation OWL 2 Full using literal in object property (examples)
suggestion: don't do this
OWL 2 Full use of rdf:value (example)
suggestion: don't use rdf:value
OWL 2 DL individual/class punning (example)
Semantic Rel's OWL 2 DL disjoint properties
Concept Coll'ns OWL 2 Full ordering with typing
suggestion: see below
Mapping Props OWL 2 DL disjoint properties
SKOS X OWL 2 Full data property chains
suggestion: ??
Here is a way of handling typed ordering that should fit within OWL 2
DL, although I haven't checked all the details.
Declare( ObjectProperty(skos:firstMember) )
Declare( ObjectProperty(skos:nextMembers) )
Declare( ObjectProperty(skos:otherMembers) )
FunctionalProperty(skos:firstMember)
FunctionalProperty(skos:nextMembers)
Domain( skos:firstMember skos:OrderedCollection )
Range( skos:firstMember UnionOf(skos:Concept skos:ConceptScheme) ) ??
Domain( skos:nextMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
Domain( skos:nextMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
Domain( skos:otherMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
Domain( skos:otherMembers skos:OrderedCollection )
SubPropertyOf( skos:nextMembers skos:otherMembers )
SubPropertyOf( PropertyChain(skos:otherMembers skos:nextMembers) skos:otherMembers )
SubPropertyOf( skos:firstMember skos:member )
SubpropertyOf( PropertyChain(skos:otherMembers skos:firstMember) skos:member )
Specific comments:
The introduction uses some sophisticated Turtle constructs without even
any mention of the syntax being used. At least a pointer is required
here.
Nits:
"data are" vs "data does"
counter-intuitive meaning -> counter-intuitive feeling
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 13:41:30 UTC