- From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:57:47 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
hi antoine i'm sorry, but i still don't understand what you're trying to say. are you, or are you not, proposing a change to any part of the skos reference? if so, what are you proposing to change exactly? thanks alistair On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:18:18PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: > 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 >> > -- Alistair Miles Senior Computing Officer Image Bioinformatics Research Group Department of Zoology The Tinbergen Building University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3PS United Kingdom Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 09:58:26 UTC