- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:32:23 +0200
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-swd-wg@w3.org
>> +1 for the first part. Disjointness of properties seems for the >> moment a bit difficult to state, given the meagre amount of expertise >> in that domain. Actually for some experiments we have thought about >> that, and came with no definitive conclusion. It depends on what you >> want to do with the mappings, it seems. Some cases would accomodate >> very well non-disjoint properties, some will actually exploit the >> disjointess to make inferences wrt. to the quality of an alignment. >> >> For the second part, I do not really understand the comment. Where >> have we stated that the semantic relationships are of secondary >> importance? I mean, having a significant part of our vocabulary (and >> our documents) about them acknowledges the relevance of these, >> doesn't it? And with respect to the use of semantic relationships I >> think the UCR documents provides enough evidence of how important >> they are for the scope of SKOS... > > > I think that's more or less what Alistair is saying here isn't it? Sorry, I think I have understood first Alistair's "We believe the SKOS Reference makes no judgment as to the relative importance of the different types of relationships." as not really saying that they were of equal importance. But of course now that you make me think about it twice, my imperfect English can see it :-). The fact is that it's more direct than what I would have dared writing myself. Antoine
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 11:33:01 UTC