W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [SKOS] moving development forward & compatibility with OWL-DL (ISSUE-38)

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:28:15 +0200
Message-ID: <46E4F20F.5020503@cs.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> Hi all,
> I spoke to Ivan Herman last week at the DC-2007 conference about how development of SKOS was going. He said that he thought SKOS was an important part of the Semantic Web picture, and that we should aim to move ahead as quickly as possible. 
> We should especially make all effort to stay within our deliverable schedule. Our schedule has a first Working Draft (WD) by june this year, with last call WD by October, and Candidate Recommendation by December. So we're behind schedule.
> Ivan was particularly concerned that we find a way to work around some of the difficult technical issues we've had to deal with, especially the layering of SKOS on OWL (DL).
> Ivan drew my attention to the OWL 1.1 specification, which is a W3C member submission [1]. He suggested that near-future development of OWL *may* resolve some of the tricky issues of building on top of OWL DL. Therefore, we should build on top of OWL Full for now, and postpone the issue of OWL DL compatibility (because we may not have to resolve it).
> Even if OWL 1.1 is *not* published in the near future, I still think this is a reasonable proposal. I think it is reasonable for this WG *not* to take on responsibility for publishing guidance on using SKOS within OWL DL, and to leave this to be resolved within a community of practice.
> Therefore I... 
> PROPOSE that we build the SKOS semantics on OWL Full, and postpone the issue of OWL DL compatibility [ISSUE-38].

I support this proposal.  I will include it in the agenda for tomorrow's telecon. .

> If we accept this proposal, then we will have to work out exactly what it means for the design principles we use to construct the SKOS Semantics. It might mean, for example, that we can declare all SKOS properties as either datatype properties or object properties, and not use owl:AnnotationProperty at all. I'll spend some time thinking about these issues, and look forward to further discussion.
> Cheers,
> Alistair. 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/
> [ISSUE-38] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/38
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> Science and Technology Facilities Council
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440 

VU University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 11:02:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:45 UTC