In NL we have eg: https://bp4mc2.org/profiles/#skos-toepassingsprofiel-voor-begrippenkaders
a profile for LD application for the government. (you have to follow or explain why not…) It has an integral role for skos. [cid:[email protected]] Small fragment (google) translation: 2. SKOS Application profile for conceptual frameworks Concepts make it clear which "topics of conversation" there are. In a system catalog terms are formally defined, each definition being built up according to strict rules. The essence is that every concept in a particular domain is explained in terms of other concepts. Those concepts are also limited until every concept that needs explanation has been defined. Ultimately, the concepts remain, the meaning of which is assumed to be automatic. In a logical model these are called axioms. This creates an axiomatic conceptual framework for each domain. This conceptual framework can be regarded as a more-less specified description of the institutional reality of the domain. SKOS is used to describe concepts. SKOS is on the apply or explain list in the Netherlands. Each concept is represented by a skos: concept. Each domain has its own conceptual framework. The conceptual framework for a particular domain is represented by a skos: ConceptScheme. Concepts can be organized in collections. A collection is represented by a skos: collection. Concepts in different domains can be linked through appropriate mechanisms. This connection of concepts between domains creates a cohesion of coherent conceptual frameworks. This system of coherent conceptual frameworks can be seen as the knowledge base for a system catalog. Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Location<http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> [cid:[email protected]]<http://www.tno.nl/> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages. Van: [email protected] <[email protected]> Namens David Price Verzonden: woensdag 14 april 2021 11:25 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Why SKOS in ontologies? Was Re: [topbraid-users] best practise name space in multiple languages? Hi TB users, The discussion with Michel caused a question to pop into my mind and I hope to get some customer feedback here. I see customers/bodies use SKOS to define what turn out to be simple lists of standard class instances that are then used in an ontology. My question is - Why? OWL enumerated classes provide the same standard-instance capability, but without the added “clutter” in your ontology when you import SKOS. The number of completely empty, never-to-be-used cases of Collection, Concept Scheme, etc. appearing as classes in ontologies has become surprising to me. Can anyone who’s been part of making this kind of decision in your ontologies please explain Why? Among other possible reasons, a few I could think of might be: * Is it that the UI for creating them is simpler? * Is it that these standard instances are seen as being somehow improved by having a not-well-defined tree structure available via broader/narrower? * Is it that you’re using a standard that’s done this and you’d be happy with any solution that supports defining standard instances? i.e. perhaps a SKOS-to-enumerated-class importer for these situations would be a useful tool? * Is that you really have use cases like described here: https://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/skos-and-owl/master.html. ? * Is it really just that you prefer/need the SKOS annotation properties, even for classes, instances, etc? (I like them and have local a skos-annotations-only.ttl I reuse) We are always looking for real-world user scenarios wrt improving EDG, and so you can also think of this as a requirements gathering/feature request exercise. It may be there are some EDG feature or UI changes we could make. It may be that a How-To video on our Web site explaining this approach and how to best execute it in EDG would be useful. I don’t know but thought it worth asking the requirements question to see how prevalent this is and why it happens. Cheers, David “ x.y Combination of language bindings In practice, there will often be a need for a combination of language bindings. In the most extensive case, this concerns (always 1 or more): * SKOS concept scheme; * RDFS (basic) ontology (imports the SKOS concept scheme); * OWL ontology (imports the RDFS ontology); * SHACL graph (imports the RDFS ontology). Since the semantic intent of the SKOS concepts is fundamentally different from that of the ontological resources describing the semantics of the data and/or serving as the basis for reasoning about data, it is important to distinguish the name space URIs from the SKOS concepts of the name space URIs of the ontology resources by using a different name space. The ontological items are linked to the corresponding SKOS items using the existing rdfs:isDefinedBy relationship. Since RDFS, OWL and SHACL are not fundamentally different and cover complementary semantic aspects, the same name space URIs can be used mutually for resources defined 1) with RDFS only, 2) with RDFS plus OWL and 3) with RDFS plus SHACL. A resource can be typed as an rdfs:Class, an owl:Class and a sh:NodeShape at the same time. The ontologies represented in RDFS, OWL and SHACL are recorded in their own graphs with their own graph URI and can therefore be used independently of each other and import each other. UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 US +1 (336) 283-0808 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/F7DEF80F-2471-41E8-8A51-DFF5239464C0%40topquadrant.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/F7DEF80F-2471-41E8-8A51-DFF5239464C0%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/d47d46a4b4de4866a319124d1a45615b%40tno.nl.
