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

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

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:24:50 -0800
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080114082411.04afe3f0@med.stanford.edu>
To: "Svensson, Lars" <l.svensson@d-nb.de>,"SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

So long as every relation has a formal English definition, I'm fine 
with that proposal.
Daniel

At 11:47 PM 1/13/2008, Svensson, Lars wrote:

>In litteris suis de Samstag, 12. Januar 2008 14:58,
>public-esw-thes-request@w3.org <>scripsit:
>
> > At 11:07 AM 1/10/2008, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >> OK Daniel, let me have another try  if you don't mind  :-)
> >>>
> >>> From my point of view, it does NOT make sense that skos:narrower
> >>> and broader are not transitive.
> >>> And if applications can go ahead and make them transitive by
> >>> expanding how they wish, that violates the asserted SKOS semantics.
> >>> Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, this sounds like a
> >>> formula for chaos.
>
>I know we're currently finialising the spec, but anyhow:
>
>We could invent two new properties skos:broaderTransitive (a subproperty
>of skos:broader)        and skos:narrowerTransitive (a subproperty of
>skos:narrower) which both are declared as transitive. Could this be a
>solution?
>
>All the best,
>
>Lars
>--
>Dr. Lars G. Svensson
>Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
>Informationstechnik
>Adickesallee 1
>60322 Frankfurt
>http://www.d-nb.de/
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 16:25:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT