Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints

<If the property isn't there, and you are using closed world semantics, then
the skos:Concept is not in the skos:ConceptScheme>

I am not sure this is the case. Today, people create concept schemes without
implicitly saying ?concept skos:inScheme ?someScheme because the utility of
making such statement is not (at all) clear.

Most commonly, they just use skos:broader and skos:narrower.
skos:hasTopConcept may be used to identify the tree roots. In some ways,
skos:ConceptScheme seems to be yet another way to partition RDF. By yet
another, I mean in addition to having named graphs. Similarly,
skos:Collection and skos:member may be considered alternatives to rdfs:Class
and rdf:type.

Bring in DCTERMS into the picture and there are more alternatives such as
dcterms:type instead of rdf:type.

I believe people are genuinely confused about what they should use, when and
why.

Irene Polikoff, CEO
TopQuadrant, Inc. www.topquadrant.com <http://www.topquadrant.com/>
Technology providers making enterprise information meaningful
Blogs ‹ http://www.topquadrant.com/the-semantic-ecosystems-journal/,
http://www.topquadrant.com/composing-the-semantic-web/
LinkedIn ‹ https://www.linkedin.com/company/topquadrant
Twitter - https://twitter.com/topquadrant


From:  Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date:  Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:31 PM
To:  <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
Resent-From:  <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:31:51 +0000


[resend to include list]

On Aug 10, 2015 4:48 AM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
> It's true that concept schemes, and RDF in general, are produced
inconsistently. The concept scheme at
> http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/AdministrativeHierarchyLevel/, for
example, does include skos:inScheme links but there's no guarantee that such
properties will be included.

 If the property isn't there, and you are using closed world semantics, then
the skos:Concept is not in the skos:ConceptScheme, just like an instance is
not a member of class if it is not entailed before the world is closed.

> This use case is trivial to express in one line of *readable* OWL, and trivial
to validate (it only needs OWL-EL, and so it's in p-time,  and probably
sub-linear).

> If every use case similar to this one requires writing complex custom scripts,
then the only relevant shape is pear.

 Simon