Cracking the nut: separating semantics and structure

Here's a possible solution to the longstanding problem of overloaded
semantics in thesaurus-style relationships.

We have a set of properties for building a CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE.  These
structural properties carry very weak semantics, if any.  The skos:narrower
and skos:broader props allow organising concepts into a hierarchy.  The
skos:related property allows associative links between branches of the
hierarchy.  To reiterate, these props imply no semantics, they just allow
building of a structure, or to put it another way, structural organisation
of concepts.

We have a second set of properties which carry well defined semantics.
There is one for the instantive (instance-of) relationship - rdf:type.
There is one for the generic (class subsumption) relationship -
rdfs:subClassOf.  And there should be one for the partitive (part-of)
relationship - ??? (call it skos:partOf for now, although there must be some
reference property we could use).

So then these two sets of props are the building blocks for all other props.
For example:

skos:broaderInstantive
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	skos:broader;
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	rdf:type.

skos:broaderGeneric
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	skos:broader;
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	rdfs:subClassOf.

skos:broaderPartitive
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	skos:broader;
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	skos:partOf.	

(or the alternative structural rendering of the partitive relationship ...)

skos:relatedPartOf	
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	skos:related;
	rdfs:subPropertyOf	skos:partOf.

... So each one of these properties has a structural component and a
semantic component, and these two components have been factored out.  That's
the idea.

What does everyone think?

Al.