- 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>
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