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

Re: [SKOS] The return of ISSUE-44 (was Re: TR : SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 23 December 2007)

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:44:28 +0000
Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4D7608C1-EF26-4D70-BCB7-508CC72040D2@gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> I'm sorry but I don't have it...
> I don't have ISO available right now, but I will check it.
> As far as Z39.19 is concerned I cannot see a reference to something  
> like transitivity (but I might have overlooked, I just read quickly  
> the section on se;antic relations)
> How about the following example:
> mountains regions BTI Himalaya
> Himalaya BTP Everest
> Can we naturaly have Everest as a narrower term of montains regions?  
> Does Z39.19 explicitly forbid that?

I can't remember if Z39.19 explicitly prohibits this, but my personal  
belief is that it BTI and BTP are distinct relationships.

The logical test for   BT = BTG + BTP could be described as "is or is  
part of a ";  Everest "is or is part of a " Mountain regions"   
undoubtedly holds

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:44:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:09 UTC