ISSUE-176 draft response

Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Jeremy on [ISSUE-176], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Jeremy. Feel free to post your thoughts at any time, Jeremy


Dear Jeremy

Thank you for your comments [1]:

     * Relationship between skos:exactMatch, skos:broadMatch and
skos:narrowMatch. The Working group consider that there is insufficient
implementation experience or evidence to be able to make a firm  
decision (see
resolution of ISSUE 75). The current situation is that there are no  
stating relationships between skos:exactMatch, skos:broadMatch and
skos:narrowMatch. Axioms could be stated, for example, asserting that  
composition of skos:broadMatch and skos:exactMatch is a subproperty of
skos:broadMatch. Note that this would, however, require OWL 2  
features which are
not present in OWL.

Since several constraints that cannot be expressed in OWL1 have  
already been
included, I see no harm in including further constraints that cannot be
expressed in OWL1. These should be expressed in plain text, like for  
S14, and any reference to OWL2 should be clearly informative and not  


The intended reading of this statement is not that axioms have been  
left unstated due to them requiring OWL 2 features, rather that the  
WG felt unable to make a clear decision as to whether such axioms  
should be stated /in any form/ (for example as prose).

We propose no change to the document. Is this acceptable?


	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 16:06:38 UTC