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

Re: RE : Suggestion for SKOS FAQ

From: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:30:38 -0400
Message-ID: <1af06bde0803111030q3160177bqb102cb7bb59105e9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Cc: al@jku.at, "Alasdair J G Gray" <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, "Antoine Isaac" <Antoine.Isaac@kb.nl>, iperez@babel.ls.fi.upm.es, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
The SKOS relationship termed  "broader" does not correspond to the
traditional BT relationship. Instead SKOS  "broader" is a subset of Broader
Term).

 That is, not ever pair of concepts that are related as Broader Terms is
also related by "broader", but every pair that is "broader" is also "Broader
Term".
Thus "broader" is a sub property of "broaderTransitive".

This construction may be legal.  Antoniou and  Harmelen  (2003) claim in
passing that transitivity in owl properties is inherited - "No transitive
cardinality restrictions: no cardinality restrictions may be placed on
transitive properties (or their subproperties, which are of course also
transitive, by implication"

However, the OWL semantics do not appear to require this, and no inferences
about the particular class of a property seem to be directly licensed.

Of course, the correct super property of SKOS "broader" should be "related",
since it is now an  associative relationship.

Simon

*Antinou, G. and Frank van Harmelen (2003)  "Web Ontology Language: OWL" in
Handbook on Ontologies. Springer Verlag. Available at
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/postscript/OntoHandbook03OWL.pdf*

* *

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <
Margherita.Sini@fao.org> wrote:

>  I agree with Andy, I also think it should be a sub-property, not a
> super-property...
>
> Regards
> Margherita
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:30:47 GMT

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