Argument · Framework metamodels · Identity and mapping
Five things OWL cannot say for you
Cross-framework correspondence, non-transitive hierarchies, version-boundary statements, label semantics and controlled value sets, each with the shape of the statement that needs SKOS.
SKOS is not redundant beside an ontology; five recurring statements have no OWL equivalent.
The full note is not online yet. The claim above is what it argues.
lzn:skos-next-to-owl lz:thesis "SKOS is not redundant beside an ontology; five recurring statements have no OWL equivalent." ; dct:subject archi:Metamodel , skos:mappingRelation .