- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:46:10 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi
OK, if you can do without direct relationships then don't use them,
because of the open world assumption. (Still wondering about possible
use cases that I can't think of myself, maybe Antoine has cooked up
one in the meantime?) A few notes:
- it's not a question of "inferred/implied" vs. "asserted". You can
also have a graph which already asserts the transitive statements
itself, or e.g. only half of them (for whatever reason). You still
need to distinguish between direct and non-direct.
- sometimes you just want to distinguish between the direct and
non-direct parents (e.g. browser tool). Open world or not, at that
point you close it. (THis open world assumption keeps bugging me for
this kind of reason.)
Regards,
Mark.
Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>>"Directness" is relative. I expect query tools and databases
>>(eg. built
>>on SPARQL) will
>>be used by applications who do care to know whether some relationship
>>(eg. subClassOf)
>>is directly asserted, versus implied, within a particular
>>dataset.
>
>
> I'm with Dan, I think we should leave it to the tools to tell us whether the relationship is asserted or inferred. I'm happy to drop the idea of a 'broaderDirect' property in the SKOS Extensions vocabulary.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al.
>
>
--
Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 11:46:17 UTC