- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:21:47 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi I have shortened the OWL-and-SKOS pattern wiki page I had created, if this can be of some help for working on [1]. the material is at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics-Patterns There are obvious links between the patterns there and the ones you propose in [1] Solution 1 is clearly the "overlay" solution Solution 2 is the "transform", assuming that users go for the "bridging" solutions you've let open in your draft. Solution 3 is very much related to your "Formal / Semi-Formal Hybrids" Solution 4 is actually on a different level, since it makes the distinction between distinct OWL entities we would like to SKOSify: owl:Classes, and the others. This could seem a secondary problem, but actually corresponds to some cases that were mentioned on the mailing list. Cheers, Antoine > > > Finally, I have checked my scriblings for the F2F meeting [3]. I think > I could simplify it a lot: some variants are actually less > interesting, and not supported by their initial promotors (e.g. Daniel > with the skos:Entity thing ;-) > I will try to do this. Not to have my graphs forced into your section > ;-) but because I'd like to be sure in the end that all the pros and > cons I listed are taken into account (if they are indeed relevant) > > Sorry if I'm too picky here... > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] > <http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/skos-owl-patterns.html> > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics#head-052e7af2def01fd42442b00fdaab3d87138f552c > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics > >
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 15:22:04 UTC