- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:10:04 +0100
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hello Guus Does this mail from Guus actually acknowledge that none of my arguments in [1] is proper? Shortly: - there is a authoritative difference between broader and broadMatch that makes them different, especially every broadMatch is not a broader - assuming this, there may be cases of inter-scheme broader links and cases of intra-scheme broadMatch links These seems at first glance to go against some of your assumptions in [2]... Antoine [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0097.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0113.html > > A this week's telecon I promised to make a proposal about the semantic > relation between skos:broader and skos:broaderMatch (and mutatis > mutandis for skos:narrower and skos:related). This should be seen as > a possible addendum to Antoine's proposed resolutions [2, 3]. > My suggestion is that the following semantic relationship holds: > > skos:broaderMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broader . > > The usage pattern would be the following: > > - an schema owner who wants to make a distinction between broader and > broaderMatch relations should use the subproperty typing > - for such schema's it would be reasonable to assume that instances > of skos:broader that are not instances of skos:broaderMatch, are > intra-scheme relations. > A few remarks: > - Through the inScheme property of concepts you can in principle > derive whether a skos:broader relation is inter-scheme or > intra-scheme. In this sense skos:broaderMatch is just a shorthand c.q. > syntactic sugar. This is actually the main argument against having the > Match relations at all. > Turning this around, we could also say that if a broaderMatch relation > exists between two concepts, then they must be in different schemes > (useful if the inScheme property is not defined by the schema owner). > - One could also say that we it would be neater to have two > subproperties of skos:broader, for both intra-scheme and inter-scheme > relations. In my opinion this creates too much new vocabulary and is > an unwanted complexity. > > - Another argument against this proposal is that some desired logical > meta-properties (e.g. symmetry of skos:related) do *not* automatically > inherit over the subproperty relation. > Guus > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0095.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0076.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0077.html > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 11:10:13 UTC