- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:23:48 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0D3CAEF@judith.fzi.de>
Hi Peter, and all! I have to apologize. I just remember that I have agreed in one of our earlier telcos to contribute my own SKOS review stuff. But I later forgot about this again, and sent my review privately, anyway. Well, it won't come back... Michael >-----Original Message----- >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:41 PM >To: public-owl-wg@w3.org >Subject: personal review of SKOS Reference for WG consideration > > >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 16:24:33 UTC