- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:13:36 +0000
- To: mark@few.vu.nl
- Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
mark@few.vu.nl wrote: >Hi, > > > >>>Technically, a mapping could be done between the two semantics, but >>>the interpretation of all synsets as classes and of all hypernymOf >>>relations as subClassOf is untenable wrt intuition, because many >>>synsets refer to individuals, >>> >>> >>...that's a bug in the data, not the metamodel, one might argue. >> >> >> > >We can offer the synsets-as-classes option for those who would like to use it in >that way, by describing that they can add > >- wn:Synset rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class >- wn:hyponymOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf > >to the version we have now. If this is desirable to promote is another point. > > I guess OWL-DL enthusiasts won't like this approach... nor to see such statements in the RDFS/OWL documents available at the relevant namespace(s). Dan
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 06:13:04 UTC