W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > August 2008

Re: SKOS Comment (Reference WD June 2008) - broaderTransitive < broader, narrowerTransitive < narrower

From: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:33:13 -0400
Message-ID: <1af06bde0808021133k369a5658t625a2e8481f37b37@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

That's why we de-coupled what is not controversial ("this broader was
> asserted in that thesaurus, and we publisher of the thesaurus want you to
> know it") from what is useful but should not mess up with initial assertions
> (broaderTransitive)


Lets try and clarify things

In the scenario described above,  publisher P asserts:

*A* broader *B*

What relationship is being asserted between the extensions of *A* and *B* (*
A* and *B*) ?

1)  *A *⊂* B* ?   (All A's are B's )

2)  |*A* ∩* B*|  > |*A* \ *B*| ? (more A's are B's than are not B's)

3)  ∃a.(a ∈ *A* ∧ a ∈ *B*)  ∧ ∃b.(b ∈ *B* ∧ b ∉ *A*) ?  ( At least one A is
a B and at least one B is not an A)
Received on Saturday, 2 August 2008 18:33:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:00 GMT