RE: personal review of SKOS Reference for WG consideration

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:28 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: personal review of SKOS Reference for WG consideration
>
>Could you please send it to us as well?
>Thanks,
>Alan
>

Here is the mail which I sent:

  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html>

This is to a large degree a bug report.

Michael

>
>On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
>wrote:
>
>
>	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
>
>
>