Re: broader and broaderMatch... and BT???

I like this proposal !

Is it reasonable to follow it for implementation?

Thanks!

Christophe

Stephen Bounds a écrit :
>
> Hi Christophe, Antoine and all,
>
> Personally I'm a fan of keeping SKOS terminology self-describing where 
> possible (and therefore would argue against using "BT"/"NT"/"RT" 
> within SKOS).
>
> A thought -- what about simply using:
>
>   skos:broadInScheme
>   skos:narrowInScheme
>   skos:relatedInScheme
>
> This would then follow a construction similar to skos:broadMatch and 
> match the terminology of existing vocab terms such as skos:inScheme.
>
> Regards,
> -- Stephen.
>
> Christophe Dupriez wrote:
>> Dear Antoine,
>>
>> Reading this (and seing my (reasonable) difficulties to apply SKOS to 
>> real life problems), I would like to insist that the frame defined by 
>> previous ISO standards for thesauri be kept and supplemented. This 
>> may seem bottom-up compared to the apparent top-down process to 
>> define SKOS: it is alway better when stalagmites join stalagtites !
>>
>> For my own stuff, I will implement:
>>
>> skos:semanticRelation
>> |
>> +- skos:related
>> |   |
>> |   +- ???:RT
>> |   |  (disjoint from)
>> |   +- skos:relatedMatch
>> |
>> +- skos:broaderTransitive (disjoint from related and narrowerTransitive)
>> |   |
>> |   +— skos:broader
>> |       |
>> |       +- ???:BT
>> |       |  (disjoint from)
>> |       +- skos:broadMatch
>> |
>> +— skos:narrowerTransitive (disjoint from related and broaderTransitive)
>>     |
>>     +- skos:narrower
>>         |
>>         +- ???:NT
>>         |  (disjoint from)
>>         +- skos:narrowMatch
>>
>>
>> Please note that "BT <union> broadMatch" does not cover "broader" 
>> because "broader" may cross scheme boundaries and "BT" cannot.
>> If you add the concept of "subScheme" (micro-thesaurus), "BT" should 
>> not cross micro-thesaurus borders.
>>
>> With "RT", you can cross micro-thesaurus borders but not scheme 
>> boundaries.
>>
>
>
>