- From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:50:38 +0100
- To: "'SWD Working Group'" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Apologies for not getting to this sooner. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-primer-20080221/ == Sub-Section 3.1 == """ If an application concerned with provenance information (see Section 4.5) reads this statement, it will infer that the triples present in the original concept scheme are also "stated" by the newly defined concept scheme. """ I think it would be more appropriate to say something like: "If an application reads this statement, it may request a representation of the original concept scheme (via its URI), process the response (if any) into an RDF graph, and include that graph within the representation of the extended concept scheme." ... or something like that. This feels like splitting hairs, but I don't think an OWL imports statement licenses any formal "inferences" as such. The OWL Reference and OWL Semantics both have some fairly careful language about what owl:imports means. Apart from that, no comments other than those stated in my original review [1]. == Sub-Section 3.3 == I have no comments on the content. My only thought is, this sub-section could be moved to section 4. ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13] --done Alistair. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0093.html -- Alistair Miles Senior Computing Officer Image Bioinformatics Research Group Department of Zoology The Tinbergen Building University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3PS United Kingdom Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 08:51:18 UTC