- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:23:00 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hello, > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose the following section of the SKOS Semantics as a resolution for [ISSUE-31]: > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Labelling?action=recall&rev=5> > > This proposal deals with the intuitive semantics of "preferred", "alternative" and "hidden" at the syntactic level, which avoids complicated semantics conditions and allows for error-tolerant strategies to be defined. > > This idea of handling some conditions at a syntactic level is new to me, and I have very limited experience of writing normative specifications of application behaviour, so I'd very much welcome comments and thoughts on this proposal. > Has this syntactic level be used elsewhere? I think I can understood the use, but such an approach (at least its label) seems pretty weird if we want to position SKOS in the realm of the Semantic Web. And what is the level of complementarity/redundancy between axiomatic triples and semantic conditions on the one hand, and syntactic conditions on the other hand? Are the syntactic conditions representing 'soft' (with MAY) or 'semi-hard' (with SHOULD) constraints, while the semantic ones encode 'harder' constraints? And if not, shall we still propose 'semantic' specification in the SKOS semantics document, if there are possibly redundant syntactic constraints? Also, I have an editorial comment on the [DL-optional] tag. Could it be [nonDL-optional] instead? Reading this I would understand they are optional if you want to make your ontology OWL-DL, which is the contrary. But if I'm the only one to see it like that... Sorry for some of these comments. I should have made them when I first read the SKOS semantics document, but they only appear now that I see concrete examples of them and try to understand them :-( Cheers, Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 20:42:32 UTC