Re: [SKOS] "SKOS RDF schema"

Hi Alistair,

Yes, I'm trying to say that we should change the SKOS Reference, and especially the section 1.8, by adding that there are three specifications of the model which can be used for consistency checking (so, not formal conformance--this is where my wording was especially messy). Two of which are normative (the SXX axioms in the Reference and the OWL-Full RDF file) and one informative (the OWL-DL file).

What is really important is that we give some clarification of the status & goals of the specifications that are currently flying around (SXX axioms, OWL-Full, OWL-DL ontologies) in a pretty confusing way--see how together my quotes from 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 can produce an unclear picture.

Of course we can produce some flesh around that (e.g. explaining why the OWL-Full ontology is normative, while incomplete) but that's only a second, less important step.

I hope I'm clearer :-/

Antoine


> 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
>>>
>

Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 10:22:48 UTC