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

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

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:39:01 +0100
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB6690269F983@hqgiex01.fao.org>

Dear Alan,

indeed your proposal "isBroaderThan" seems more comprehensible than

But I think will be good to keep consistency with thesauri in which "A BT B"
is actually represented as A has more broader term B... the opposite would be
"B NT A" meaning B has more narrow term A (in your case would be B
isBroaderThan A). But I think maybe we start to create more confusion if we
change NT with "isBroaderThan"...

hope this helps

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 January 2008 14:22
To: Sini, Margherita (KCEW)
Cc: Leonard Will; SWD WG; SKOS
Subject: Re: TR : [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics

isNarrowerThan  isBroaderThan is even clearer, IMO. The test for  
clarity would be to use the predicate in a sentence and see if it  
makes sense. So compare

"train" isBroaderThan "train station"


"train station" hasBroader "train"

Am I the only one who finds the first easier to understand?


On Jan 15, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Sini, Margherita (KCEW) wrote:

> I also have the same problem referring to the ambiguity of BT (is a
> BT or has
> BT ?), therefore I propose that the skos relationships could  
> include the
> verb:
> 	skos:hasBroader and skos:hasNarrower.
> This will avoid confusion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-
> request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Leonard Will
> Sent: 14 January 2008 22:47
> Subject: Re: TR : [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 at 18:15:23, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> wrote
>> 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
> Antoine -
> Just to clarify this example first, I should note that the normal
> convention
> in thesaurus circles, and in BS8723-2, para.8.3.1, is to interpret  
> BT as
> meaning "has the broader term" and NT as "has the narrower term".   
> ISO 2788,
> paragraph 4.1, also reads
>         BT Broader term; the term that follows the symbol represents a
>         concept having a wider meaning
> I remember some previous discussion on the SKOS list about the
> ambiguity of
> using these abbreviations the other way round, to mean "is the  
> broader term
> of", for example. This can easily give rise to confusion and should  
> be sorted
> out urgently. Thus I would write your example above as
> mountainous regions
> NT Himalaya
> Himalaya
> NT Everest
> where the first is in fact an NTI relationship (i.e., for Margherita's 
> benefit, narrower term instantive, meaning that the proper name
> Himalaya is a
> specific instance of a mountainous region, the reciprocal  
> relationship being
> BTI). The second is a NTP relationship (i.e. narrower term  
> partitive, meaning
> that Everest is a part of the Himalaya, reciprocal BTP).
>> 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, losing 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 ;-)
> I think the issue is how transitivity is to be used. The main use of a 
> hierarchy, apart from displaying structure and giving logical paths
> for
> navigation, is to allow a search for a concept to be expanded to  
> include
> narrower concepts. In the generic case this is valid because the  
> narrower
> concepts are specific classes which fall within the broader  
> concept. The
> rules for indexing are generally that you allocate the most  
> specific terms
> possible to a document, and you can rely on the thesaurus to enable  
> these
> concepts to be found even when the search is expressed in broader  
> terms.
> The whole/part or "partitive" relationship can lead to problems, and 
> BS8723-2, paragraph says that it should normally be
> restricted to
> four specific cases:
> a) systems and organs of the body
> b) geographical locations
> c) disciplines or fields of discourse
> d) hierarchical social structures.
> The "Himalaya NTP Everest" example falls into case b), and it is
> reasonable
> that someone searching for information about the Himalaya and any  
> of its
> parts should wish to retrieve items that have been indexed with the  
> term
> "Everest".
> I agree that if transitivity is to work across mixed types of
> relationship,
> we would have to interpret NT to mean "has the more specific  
> concept, part or
> instance", to generalise what Simon Spero suggested. If you then had
> EU countries
> NTI France
> France
> NTP Paris
> it would be true to say that Paris is a more specific concept, part or 
> instance of an EU country. Perhaps we should adopt this meaning.
> We should note, though, that this type of interpretation is used when 
> deciding how to expand a search using a thesaurus hierarchy. It
> does not
> allow you to modify the hierarchy itself, by designating France and  
> Paris as
> siblings. BS8723-2, paragraph 14.3 g), specifically forbids this,  
> saying
>         Validation checks should prevent the entry of inadmissible
>         relationship combinations. If two terms already have one of
> the
>         standard relationships, no other standard relationship between
>         the same terms is admissible. If term A has BT term B, none of
>         the terms in the BT hierarchy above term B should be  
> admissible
>         as BT, NT or RT of term A.
> This means that we cannot create a direct relationship which jumps
> over the
> middle concept. It seems to me that we have two options:
> 1. If the consequence of this is that transitivity is in general
> not valid,
> then SKOS should reflect that;
> 2. If we accept the generalised definition of hierarchical
> relationship, e.g.
> using NT to mean "has the more specific concept, part or instance",  
> then we
> can assume transitivity.
> I don't know which of these fits best with the purpose and approach
> of SKOS.
> I think the decision should come from an examination of use cases.
> Leonard
> -- 
> Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E  
> Will)
> Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372  
> 0092
> 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051
> 7276
> L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk                
> Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
> ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/>  
> -----------------
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 13:39:23 UTC

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