Re: ISSUE 37+56

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 Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 13:58:49 UTC