- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:43:06 +0200
- To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- CC: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tom > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >>> And what I am saying is that there is a community of people creating >>> OWL ontologies who want to use skos for interoperability with >>> terminologies. >>> >> I think that even if this is the direction opposite to the one I >> demonstrated, this is still quite the same concern. If you have >> my:aorta rdf:type owl:Class >> you can just assert >> my:aorta skos:prefLabel "aorta" >> And bang, it is now also an instance skos:Concept, compatible with other >> terminologies. You can say my:aorta skos:broader his:BloodyThingsInbody, >> assuming that this is a concept define in someone else's terminology. >> > > I don't quite get the "bang" part... What is there in the > semantics of skos:prefLabel [1,2] to support this inference? > Sorry, my mistake. I actually found that the preferredTerm proposed by Guus had skos:Concept as a domain [3] so I generalized this thinking that prefLabel had (or would have one) such a domain assignment. But this is clearly not in the specs [1,2], and we should be careful with that. Thanks for spotting the weak point! But I could rephrase my example: if I assert my:aorta skos:broader myAnatomyThesaurus:BloodCircuit Then thanks to the domain of skos:semanticRelation (which subsumes skos:related) [4] I have the "bang" effect Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#prefLabel [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#prefLabel [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#semanticRelation
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 11:43:13 UTC