Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints

Hi Irene
 

> On August 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
>  <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.
> 

Given that skos:broadMatch and skos:narrowMatch are sub-properties of
skos:broader and skos:narrower respectively, then would someone mapping their
concepts to, say, INSPIRE concepts implicitly make those concepts somehow 'in'
the INSPIRE scheme?

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

Seems to me (as already suggested by Martynas) that a good way to do this is to
use relationships that are present in the data. If one publisher uses
skos:inScheme for this, another rdf:type and another ... 

I can easily imagine use cases where I want to say I can link to a thing but
only those things where some ex:state property has value "Active".

To me this seems so close to OWL restrictions that there must be a generic way
to express such constraints.

>   
>  I believe people are genuinely confused about what they should use, when and
> why.
>   
>  Irene Polikoff, CEO 
>  TopQuadrant, Inc. <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 <mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com> >
>  Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:31 PM
>  To: <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <mailto:public-rdf-shapes@w3.org> >
>  Subject: Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
>  Resent-From: <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 

 John