ISSUE-138

Last Call Comment: S14 skos:prefLabel

State:
POSTPONED
Product:
SKOS
Raised by:
Everyone
Opened on:
2008-09-30
Description:
Raised by Michael Schneider in [1] on statement S14:

"""
Such a kind of functional property characteristics distinguished by language
tags cannot be expressed in OWL Full. I suggest to say this somewhere in the
document. 

Again, I want to hint you to rdf:text, in combination with OWL 2, which is going
to allow for specifying data ranges consisting of all plain literals having a
given language tag. A somewhat more general feature was the resolution of
issue-71 of the OWL WG, accepting this proposal:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0053.html>. But,
AFAICS, one would need to build a <=1-qualified cardinality restriction (new
feature in OWL 2) on each such language-data range in order to simulate a
functional property of the kind above. So this is probably all a bit academic.
"""

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-138: Last Call Comment: S14 skos:prefLabel (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-09-30)
  2. Re: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-30)
  3. ISSUE-138 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
  4. Re: ISSUE-138 draft response (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
  5. Real List of No Changes! (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
  6. Re: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-138] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-17)
  7. RE: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-138] (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-10-22)
  8. Re: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-138] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-11-06)

Related notes:

2008-11-06: ACTION: Accept

2008-11-06: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-11-06: RESOLUTION: As you point out, there are some constraints in the SKOS data model that we are unable to express in OWL (some of these /may/ be addressed by OWL 2, but in the current SKOS specification we are avoiding reference to work in progress). In such cases, the constraints are expressed in prose in the document. Statements to this effect are made in Section 1.7.1 of the LC draft. Do you feel these are sufficient, or do we need to further elaborate this point?

2008-11-06: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept