RE: [SKOS] Resolutions on concept semantics

I am opposed to *saying nothing* about disjointness between  
skos:Concept and owl:Class (actually, in general I'm opposed to  
leaving any semantics undefined in SKOS)--if you leave any semantics  
up to the user to decide, then you ensure people will have different  
meanings for the same entities and relations, making interoperability  
impossible.
Daniel

Quoting "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>:

>
> Hi Antoine,
>
>> >
>> > [following discussion on the OWL/SKOS patterns] ... we are not
>> > discussing the introduction of new properties, but the semantics of
>> > skos:Concept, in particular its disjointness with owl:Class
>> > aliman: we will not say anything about the disjointness
>> > sean: we should make clear that the omission is explicit
>>
>>  3. RESOLUTION: skos:Concept is not disjoint with owl:Class .
>> Some instances of SKOS concept may be also declared (and
>> treated) as OWL classes, and vice versa.
>
> I thought our resolution was to *say nothing* about disjointness   
> between skos:Concept and owl:Class. That would give people the   
> freedom to interpret them as disjoint, if they want to do that, or   
> not, if they don't.
>
> That's what I tried to capture in:
>
> [1]   
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference/Concepts?action=recall&rev=10>
>
>> From [1] ...
>
> "The decision to leave the formal semantics of skos:Concept   
> undefined has been made to allow different design patterns for using  
>  SKOS in combination with more formal languages such as OWL to be   
> explored.
>
> For example, interpreting skos:Concept and owl:Class as disjoint   
> classes would be consistent with the semantics of SKOS.   
> Alternatively, interpreting skos:Concept as a super-class of   
> owl:Class would also be consistent with the semantics of SKOS."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al.
>
>

Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 15:10:07 UTC