Re: [SKOS] The return of ISSUE-44 (was Re: TR : SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 23 December 2007)

Are we still contemplating hierarchy to these 
relations? It would seem "broader" and "narrower" 
are relations subsumed by "related".

Daniel

At 02:01 PM 1/9/2008, Simon Spero wrote:


>Is it better  to label these relationships with the terms 'broader'
>and 'narrower' whilst defining them with the semantics of 'related'?
>Wouldn't it be better to use the standard labels to denote the
>standard semantics, and use a special label, disjoint from broader,
>for the non-hierarchical hierarchies?
>
>The SKOS Core Guide[1] originally aligned itself with Z39.19/BS8723;
>I feel it's a mistake to abandon the standard semantics without also
>abandoning the standard labels. The Library of 
>Congress adopted the BT/ NT labels for its 
>syndetic relationships  in the LCSH, without fixing
>the semantics; this has not proven helpful :-)
>
>
>Broader/Narrower Relationships
>
>To assert that one concept is broader in meaning (i.e. more general)
>than another, where the scope (meaning) of one falls completely within
>the scope of the other, use the skos:broader property. To assert the
>inverse, that one concept is narrower in meaning (i.e. more specific)
>than another, use the skos:narrower property.
>[...]
>The properties skos:broader and skos:narrower are transitive properties.
>
>See also section on hierarchies in BS8723.
>
>  [1, §#sechierarchy]
>
>Simon
>
>[1]  Alistair Miles and Dan Brickley,SKOS Core Guide (November, 2005).
>Available at  http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/