W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [SKOS] chatting on SKOS concepts and ontology classes (was Re: ISSUE-26: SimpleExtension proposal)

From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:14:25 +0200
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070608101425.GA2436@Octavius>

On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >And what I am saying is that there is a community of people creating 
> >OWL ontologies who want to use skos for interoperability with 
> >terminologies.
> 
> I think that even if this is the direction opposite to the one I 
> demonstrated, this is still quite the same concern. If you have
> my:aorta rdf:type owl:Class
> you can just assert
> my:aorta skos:prefLabel "aorta"
> And bang, it is now also an instance skos:Concept, compatible with other 
> terminologies. You can say my:aorta skos:broader his:BloodyThingsInbody, 
> assuming that this is a concept define in someone else's terminology.

I don't quite get the "bang" part... What is there in the
semantics of skos:prefLabel [1,2] to support this inference?

Tom

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#prefLabel 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#prefLabel

-- 
Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de - baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 10:11:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:50 UTC