- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:10:35 -0700
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>,"SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
+1 Daniel At 08:20 AM 10/2/2007, Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) wrote: >We have, as you mention, some use cases where people want to use >only the labelling and documentation properties from SKOS, to add >more human-readable content to their formal (OWL) ontologies. > >Currently, neither the SKOS labelling properties nor the SKOS >documentation properties are declared with any domain. There are no >dependencies between these properties and the skos:Concept class. > >I propose that we keep them like that. This would allow the SKOS >labelling properties and the SKOS documentation properties to be >treated as if they were standalone modules, and to be used anywhere >in RDF or OWL, without having to worry about the semantics of the >skos:Concept class. > >(Maybe we could give this a name, as a design pattern for using SKOS >and OWL together -- i.e. "OWL + SKOS labelling and documentation >only" or something like that?) > >Anyway, if we keep them like that, then we don't need to consider >any of the SKOS labelling or documentation properties in our >discussion of the semantics of skos:Concept. We can just focus on >the semantics of skos:Concept, and design patterns for using >skos:Concept with OWL classes, properties and individuals. This may >simplify some of the options at [1]. > >Cheers, > >Alistair.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 21:10:46 UTC