- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:18:18 +0200
- To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Alistair, Again loose wording. But actually once can say it follows the text of the Reference: - section 1.2: The SKOS data model is formally defined in this specification as an OWL Full ontology - section 1.7: This document formally defines the Simple Knowledge Organization System data model as an OWL Full ontology. - section 1.8: an RDF graph will be inconsistent with the SKOS data model if that graph and the SKOS data model (as defined formally below) taken together lead to a logical contradiction. There might be some text somewhere clarifying that. But it is not in 1.8, and I think some global clarification should be found there. Otherwise the "defined formally below" may just be interpreted as "as defined in the RDF refered in appendix C". Cheers, Antoine > hi antoine, > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:51:15AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> Hello Alistair, >> >>> From one random W3C spec found by Google [1]: >> normative >> >> required for conformance >> >> Note 1: One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. >> >> Note 2: Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance. >> >> >> informative >> >> for information purposes and not required for conformance >> >> Note: Content required for conformance is referred to as "normative." >> >> >> >> You can argue that this is not 100% clear in our case, as if we require conformance with OWL-Full ontology, we in fact also require conformance with the OWL-DL one (as it is a subset of it). >> But from a document writing (and reading!) perspective it may matter: the only formal conformance condition we define (in section 1.8) is the one wrt. the OWL-Full ontology, > > i'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. > > currently, section 1.8 of the skos reference does not state any formal > notion of conformance. niether does it mention the owl full > ontology. so are you proposing we add something to section 1.8? > > cheers > > alistair >
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2009 21:18:54 UTC