RE: Status of LC Comments ISSUE-135

In practice we will use the SKOS label(s) in the way specified, and use them in preference to other rdfs:labels in some circumstances.
However, good labeling probably goes beyond inference (e.g. the language processing suggested for skos:prefLabel).


The subpropertyof relation seems in accordance with RDFS, even if not in accordance with OWL DL. I think it amounts to a question of which of these the WG desires to conform better with.

In a straw poll I would indicate a preference for keeping the subPropertyOf relation. If put to a vote to remove the relationship, TopQuadrant will abstain.

A compromise would be to make the relationship optional (e.g. "OWL DL systems should omit S.11")

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Sean Bechhofer
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:29 AM
> To: SWD Working SWD
> Subject: Status of LC Comments
> 
> 
> 
> We have no call tomorrow, but here is a quick update on the current
> status of LC comments. Responses have now been sent in response to
> all comments apart from the following.
> 
> * 135. Awaiting input from Guus and Jeremy re implementors.
> * 147. SB TODO
> * 153, 175. SB TODO
> * 157. May depend on discussions between SKOS/OWL WG.
> * 186. GS TODO
> 
> I am closing/postponing issues as and when responses come in from the
> commentors. If anyone spots anything that we might have missed,
> please shout.
> 
> A summary of the position produced using DisCo is also available [1].
> 
>  Sean
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/issues.html
> 
> --
> Sean Bechhofer
> School of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 20:14:23 UTC