- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:02:09 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On 12 Mar 2008, at 15:48, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>> >>> But if we include them anyway: I like very much the semantics >>> Guus has proposed for broaderGeneric and broaderInstantive. >> >> On reflection, we might just define broaderGeneric and >> broaderInstantive as owl:equivalentProperty of resp. >> rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type (and not as subproperties of these). > > Intuitively I'm ok with that. The problem is that this makes almost > every OWL class also a SKOS concept, by the domain and range of > skos:semanticRelation! > We've got to be sure if we want this as a side effect of an > apparently innocent extension ;-) It also implicitly asserts transitivity of broaderGeneric. Is this a desirable side effect? Sean -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 13:58:49 UTC