ISSUE-137

Last Call Comment: property disjointness

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

"""
Property disjointness is not expressible in OWL Full. This should be discussed
somewhere in the document, I think. Property disjointness is, however, planned
to be expressible in OWL 2. 
"""

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-137: Last Call Comment: property disjointness (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-137 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
  4. Re: ISSUE-137 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-137] (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. Property disjointness is precisely one of these cases. 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