Comments on: Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/240 An Ontology Tutorial Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2 By: Robert Stevens http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/240/comment-page-1#comment-1066 Fri, 13 May 2011 14:37:58 +0000 http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/?p=240#comment-1066 Daniel Schober’s comment that one can’t do reasoning on a SKOS vocabualry is wrong. ommonet It is possible to do reasoning on a SKOS artefact, just not very much. One can get trivial entailments like the inverses on SKOS concepts; they are OWL individuals, so when one says that x broaderthan y, the reasoner puts in y narrowerThan x. Similarly, one can exploit transitivity if using DL queries. Similarly, one ccan do defined classes underneath SKOS:concept .

]]> By: dschober http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/240/comment-page-1#comment-113 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:42:43 +0000 http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/?p=240#comment-113 typo: strcit should be strict

“both SKOS and OWL have different semantics and are intended for different applications. ”
should probably be
“expressions in SKOS semantics are less formalized and hence can’t be interpreted by Computers and logics reasoners. They are not intended for automatic inference of new knowledge. OWL semantics on the other hand is highly formalized and Computer interpretable allowing for automated reasoning and other advanced AI methods to be applied. “

]]>