- From: Svensson, Lars <l.svensson@d-nb.de>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:14:03 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
In litteris suis de , public-esw-thes-request@w3.org <>scripsit: Hi Alistair, > To explore the feasibility of this approach, and to provide a > concrete basis for discussion of specific semantic conditions, > I have written a draft semantics of SKOS as a semantic > extension of RDFS: > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfsSemanticExtension?action=recall&rev=6 > > Note that this draft only considers a limited subset of the > current SKOS vocabulary - but don't worry, there is still > plenty of potential for debate :) Nice work. As another amateur logician, my €0,02 regarding the conditions five (related symmetric [1]), six (broader/related disjoint [2],) and seven (broader circularity [3]): If we explicitly state that skos:broader is irreflexive and that related is symmetric, do we really need to explicitly state that related and broader are disjoint? I might be wrong, but isn't reflexivity a special case of symmetry (thus "not reflexive" implies "not symmetric")? If so, then related and broader are automatically disjoint since the one is symmetric and the other not. Cheers Lars (who is preparing to be marked as an illogician) [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfsSemanticExtension?action=show#head-2720d90db0d07e1bf2c8000865e3dd5dcb843fc2 [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfsSemanticExtension?action=show#head-91883720929401c191bc745af6f7bf16e645bbed [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfsSemanticExtension?action=show#head-e33bee2e45eb2b3d65f695d72782e558c8b9fd45 -- Dr. Lars G. Svensson Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Informationstechnik Adickesallee 1 60322 Frankfurt http://www.d-nb.de/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 08:14:14 UTC