W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > July 2013

ISSUES on disjoint of skos:exactMatch and skos:broaderTransitve (skos:broadMatch)

From: Hong Sun <hong.sun@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:39:27 +0200
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF92DE57B5.493768A3-ONC1257BB3.00396F37-C1257BB3.004009A2@agfa.com>
Dear Editors,

I am using SKOS for terminology mapping, and wish to use SKOS for 
integrity check.

My use case is that when mapping from one scheme A to another scheme B, I 
want to avoid overruling the hierarchy of the original scheme (A).
Therefore, I want to find out bad patterns like below:

<A1>  skos:broaderTransitive  <A2>.     -stated/deduced in scheme A 

--when the mapping is not good, I may receive the facts below during the 
mapping process.
<A1>  skos:exactMatch  <B1>.            -introduced by mapping
<A2>  skos:exactMatch  <B1>.            -introduced by mapping

As skos:exactMatch is transitive, I can then deduce <A1>  skos:exactMatch 
<A2>. 

I would consider this deduced fact violates the skos:broaderTransitive 
relation stated in scheme A.

But by reading the SKOS specification, 
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ 
I found skos:exactMatch is only disjoint with skos:broadMatch; there is no 
statement that skos:exactMatch is disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive in 
the spec.   
"S46 skos:exactMatch is disjoint with each of the properties 
skos:broadMatch and skos:relatedMatch. "

Of course I can still make my rules to detect such a pattern, but then my 
integrity check rule is not based on SKOS any more.

Meanwhile, I found in ISSUE 73, decision is made to consider 
skos:exactMatch is disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive (different with 
what finally stated on the specification)
"2008-07-01: [rrs] RESOLVED: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is 
disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related-- 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html#item05"

in the mentioned minutes, it is also stated:
"RESOLUTION: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with 
skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related"

So my question is: 
Why the specfication did not take the decision made in ISSUE 73? 
Given the user case above, together with the decsion made in ISSUE 73, 
does it make sense to conside skos:exactMatch and skos:broaderTransitive 
as disjoint? 
Moreover, if it makes sense, then is there a small chance to make an 
errata on this?

Thank you very much!

Kind Regards,

Hong Sun | Agfa HealthCare
Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 8108

http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer: 
http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer 
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 11:40:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:17 UTC