Re: Specializations of skos:broader in ISO25964

Hi Vladimir,

I would suggesting that sub-properties of skos:broader are made transitive, only for specific cases, where the publisher is aware of the consequences (ie just as a trick to save triples on the publishing side). Not for more common properties like BTP/BTG where indeed this could turn rather bad.

About the OWL suggestion: I see the point of the first lines, not the ont "non-transitive" iso-thes:broaderTransitive. If the idea is that some data consumers want to get a view of all (transitive closure of) BTG and BTP, then they can just SPAQRL for the statement of both (transitive super-properties of) BTG and BTP at once. To me such scenario does not motivate the introduction of a new property, which name and function would be quite confusing, for these who know skos:broaderTransitive.

Cheers,

Antoine



> (Note: I'm removing Antoine and Johan from To just to avoid duplicates, since I know they are subscribed to this mlist)
>
>>> - broader is non-transitive (it’s a step relation), so it cant have transitive subprops.
>> This is wrong. A non-transitive property can have transitive sub-properties, even if this property is meant to represent "steps"
>
> Formally I'm wrong but practically I'm right.
> Applications expect broader to be the step relation. If it contains transitive sub-relations, this will wreak havoc.
>
>>> so for now let’s just define broaderGeneric, broaderPartitive and broaderInstantive as subprops of skos:broader, and leave it at that
>> I agree with the focus on the simple, non-transitive definition for BG, BP and BI.
>> But I think we should let the ISO WG (with the input from this community) the choice, whether they want to offer transitive super-
>> properties (for BG and BP) if they think it can help data consumer.
>
> This is a valid goal! And then define their disjunction iso-thes:broaderTransitive.
> People in the know should use iso-thes:broaderTransitive and not skos:broaderTransitive.
>
> Johan, this below is actual Turtle you could use.
> If you prefer OWL/RDF (a horrible invention), you can use the rdf2rdf program to convert.
>
> -----------
>
> iso-thes:broaderGeneric    a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broader.
> iso-thes:broaderPartitive  a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broader.
> iso-thes:broaderInstantive a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broader.
>
> iso-thes:broaderGenericTransitive a owl:TransitiveProperty.
>    iso-thes:broaderGeneric rdfs:subPropertyOf iso-thes:broaderGenericTransitive.
> iso-thes:broaderPartitiveTransitive a owl:TransitiveProperty.
>    iso-thes:broaderPartitive rdfs:subPropertyOf iso-thes:broaderPartitiveTransitive.
>
> iso-thes:broaderTransitive a owl:ObjectProperty;
>    skos:scopeNote """
> Defined as a disjunction of broaderGenericTransitive and broaderPartitiveTransitive (BGT+BPT).
> Unlike skos:broader, this property allows paths of BG and BP but not BI, nor mixed paths of BG+BP.
> Despite the name, this property is NOT transitive, because it excludes mixed paths.
> To comply with thesaurus design principles regarding query expansion, you should use this property instead of skos:broaderTransitive.
> """.
>    iso-thes:broaderGenericTransitive   rdfs:subPropertyOf iso-thes:broaderTransitive.
>    iso-thes:broaderPartitiveTransitive rdfs:subPropertyOf iso-thes:broaderTransitive.
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 19:43:07 UTC