W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Related and RelatedSymmetric

From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:55:42 +0000
Message-ID: <lJTwLgI+mZVAFA2B@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org

In message 
<350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C04944162@exchange11.rl.ac.uk> on Mon, 
15 Mar 2004, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote
>Leonard's last mail suggests that 'related' is most often symmetric. 
>In this case would it be better to have <skos:related> as a symmetric 
>property, and have an extension <skos:relatedAsymmetric> for those 
>situations where 'related' is directional?

Most thesauri treat it as symmetric, although the actual underlying 
relationships are often not symmetric.

It would seem most logical to me to have the general <skos:related> 
apply to the case where symmetry is undefined.

<skos:relatedSymmetric> and <skos:relatedAsymmetric> would then both be 
parallel more specific cases of this. Whether you need this level, or 
whether you go straight to the more detailed specification of the 
relationship such as "cause/effect", "process/product" (both asymmetric) 
or "associated", "sibling", "neighbouring" etc. (symmetric) depends 
whether there is a difference in the way that symmetric and asymmetric 
relationships will be handled.

Leonard
-- 
Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk               Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 07:00:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:51 GMT