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 SimonReceived on Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:44:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT