Re: some thoughts about the OWL WG comments

Hi,

I share the worry wrt. interoperability issues if we do not recommend 
the use of a same property for the textual value of documentation notes.
I'm not fond of rdf:value, but at least it's there, and its 
documentation suggests that the intended meaning fits quite well the 
usage we have in mind... I would disagree with SKOS introducing an extra 
utility property just for this.

Best,

Antoine

> Hi Guus,
>
> Some more comments ...
>
>   
>> DOCUMENTATION PROPERTIES
>>
>> [[
>>     using literal in object property (examples)
>>     suggestion: don't do this
>> ]]
>>
>> We define the skos:note and its subproperties currently as  
>> owl:ObjectProperty. From an OWL Full perspective this is fine  
>> (owl:DatatypeProperty is a subproperty of owl:ObjectProperty in OWL Full  
>> [4]), but for OWL DL this is a problem. Part of the problem is that OWL  
>> forces you to make a choice between either object or datatype property,  
>> and we do not want to force this choice upon SKOS users. My proposal  
>> would be to follow a "least-commitment" strategy and change skos:note to  
>> be just an rdf:Property. This does not make it OWL-DL compliant yet, but  
>> allows people who want to use it within OWL DL to add a triple with the  
>> required OWL property type. So instead of being OWL-DL inconsistent it  
>> becomes OWL-DL incomplete.
>>     
>
> I could live with this, but am interested to hear feedback from
> others.
>
>   
>> [[
>>   use of rdf:value (example)
>>   suggestion: don't use rdf:value
>> ]]
>>
>> This refers to example 25 [5]. I note that rdf:value has no particular  
>> semantics and is mainly a usage convention (and in practice is actually  
>> not used a lot). I suggest to change the example to use a user-defined  
>> property to refer to the value.
>>     
>
> I would rather we agree on a property to use by convention to provide
> the textual content of note when using this pattern -- e.g. rdfs:label
> or rdfs:comment would work for me. It would be a shame to end up with
> 10 different user-defined properties floating around all being used
> for the same thing.
>
>   
>> I also suggest (but this is independent  
>> of the OWL WG comment), to add another property statement to illustrate  
>> why this pattern is used at all.
>>     
>
> Good idea.
>
>   
>> Whether this also implies changes to the Primer I'm not sure. We may  
>> have the pattern with the blank node to have two variations: one with a  
>> custom value property and one with rdf:value.
>>     
>
> Not sure I understand your suggestion here.
>
>   
>> I also note that we use rdf:value a lot in the namespace file [6] to  
>> specify change notes. My proposal is to drop these change notes 
>> altogether.
>>     
>
> I could live with this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alistair.
>
>

Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 13:05:54 UTC