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

RE: [SKOS] Transitive broader and ISSUE-56 (was The return of ISSUE-44 )

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:34:23 +0100
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DAE64@hqgiex01.fao.org>

Dear all,

I would like also to provide my contribution to this interesting discussion:
ISSUE-44 (now ISSUE-56)

At the beginning, I was thinking as Simon Spero that BT and NT should be
transitive.
But after reading all the emails about this topic, I now agree which is
better not to force the semantic of these relationships.
In particular I liked comments from Antoine and Bernard.

skos:broader and skos:narrower are of type owl:objectPropety and I think it
is possible to keep them generic. Note: we are not saying they are
INtransitive, but we just do not further specify.

I do not really like the solution of creating new sub-properties
skos:broaderTransitive and skos:narrowerTransitive and make them transitive,
because this means we may need to have many other cases, and this may go
agains the "simplicity" we mention is good to keep in SKOS. But if any
specification should be done, this is the correct way to go, I agree.

Finally just one comment... maybe I missed something but what are  BTP and
BTI?

Regards
Margherita
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 17:34:38 GMT

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