Re: [SKOS] notations, label and their range (was Re: some thoughts about the OWL WG comments)

Sean, hello.

On 2008 Oct 17, at 09:58, Sean Bechhofer wrote:

> Norman seems happy with the notion of adding the datatype to the  
> notation, although with the caveat that he didn't want to make  
> things any more complicated that providing a datatype URI. Our  
> proposal is now to revert to the original wording (e.g.  
> skos:notation is used with typed literals), and possibly include a  
> reference to [1] in the text.

That sounds good for me.  As long as I can say

<#notation> dc:description "blah, blah".

then I think both I and our readers would be happy.

> Alistair and I have talked briefly about this. As Guus says, the OWL  
> spec [1] requires that applications treat unrecognised datatypes the  
> same as unsupported datatypes, which essentially means treating  
> lexically identical items as equivalent. My guess is that this will  
> actually be appropriate behaviour for the majority of notations.

It would certainly be appropriate for us.

Best wishes,


Norman Gray  :
Dept Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester

Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 10:44:13 UTC