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

Re: TR : [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:15:23 +0100
Message-ID: <478B98AB.2070500@few.vu.nl>
To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Leonard,
>  
>
> >In particular, the simplicity of the syntax makes it a viable 
> translation target
> >(I'm translating the XML export format from Tower Software's TRIM
> >package into SKOS).
> >
> >As such, I am 100% in favour of trimming SKOS Core to the absolute
> >minimum required (i.e. no transitivity).
>
> I agree that we should not over-complicate SKOS by providing too many
> options, and we have to consider who will be applying these. I'm not
> convinced that many users will understand, or be concerned by, whether a
> relationship is transitive or not. I have not seen a convincing
> illustration of the need to represent intransitive BT/NT relationships,
> or examples of intransitive relationships which still conform to
> thesaurus standards. I would therefore prefer SKOS to assume that such
> relationships are transitive until someone demonstrates the need for
> more complexity.
>
> The example of a mixed chain of relationships, using BTP + BTI and so
> on, I agree is difficult, but again I doubt whether it would produce
> results that would worry users. The underlying issue seems to me whether
> we are trying to develop a scheme that is rigorously logical, for
> machine use, or whether we are mainly interested in a format to encode
> thesauri that exist and conform to standards.
>

I'd like to have your opinion on the example I will adapt from in [1], 
itself adapted from Simon's previous mails
Consider we have a thesaurus that says:
> mountains regions BT Himalaya
> Himalaya BT Everest 
If BT is transitive, than for the query "give me the concepts that 
linked tio montains regions via BT" we'll get "Himalaya" and "Everest". 
To me (and others), this raise the following issues:
- "mountains regions" BT "Everest" may seem questionable (especially if 
we know this KOS to be carefully designed, following e.g. ISO2788!)
- both concepts are now given as if siblings, loosing track of the 
initial design.

In the end I feel that the second is the most serious one, since if we 
go for a very rough specification of broader (fitting classification 
schemes' idea of hierarchy for instance) we could still argue that 
indeed there is a form a 'broader' statement between the two concepts. 
But anyway, I'd like to have your opinion on both ;-)

Best,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0024.html
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 17:16:13 GMT

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