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

Re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] Moving semantic relation property exten sions to an 'extensions' vocab.

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:59:55 -0400
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040922085955.GA20521@homer.w3.org>

* Miles, AJ (Alistair)  <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-09-21 18:38+0100]
> 
> Any further comments on this proposal?
> 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Aug/0081.html>
> 
> ... 
> 
> I would like to propose that the following properties be removed from 

seconded!

> SKOS Core, and be moved to an 'extensions' vocabulary (perhaps under the 
> namespace <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions#>?) ...
> 
> skos:broaderGeneric
> skos:broaderInstantive
> skos:broaderPartitive
> skos:narrowerGeneric
> skos:narrowerInstantive
> skos:narrowerPartitive
> skos:relatedHasPart
> skos:relatedIsPartOf
> 
> My reasons are:
> 
> (1) These are the least stable parts of SKOS Core, and I don't expect 
> them to stabilise in the short term (i.e. months).  So they're getting 
> in the way of publishing short term.
> (2) They impinge on the whole 'thesauri -> ontologies' question, which 
> again I don't think we're going to have an answer for in the next couple 
> of months.
> (3) They clutter up SKOS Core, and distract from its fundamental features.

Yup. They're interesting, but awkward. These properties are in the area 
in which RDF's (well, OWL's) facilities overlap with the more
sophisticated things that people have tried doing with thesauri. Facets etc.

So there's a risk of reinventing some of OWL, but at one layer of
abstraction's remove, and without the classes-and-instances conceptual
model that allows OWL to be mathematically precise about its notion of 
hierarchies of restriction.

I certainly think it's worth exploring, perhaps in the context of
guidelines for migrating thesauri into fully-fledged RDF/OWL vocabs.,
but I definitely support moving this out of the core.

(that'd make room in the core for a 'denotes' relation, hmm, where did
that discussion get up to...?)

cheers,

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 08:59:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT