W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: ISSUE 37+56

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:47:55 +0100
Message-ID: <47D6B7BB.60301@few.vu.nl>
To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
CC: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Margherita, Guus

Actually I've been forwarded yesterday a case of 'broader causative'. So 
I guess this would confim that your 'related causative' is not a 
candidate for predefined specialization, if we follow what Guus decided 
for 'related partitive'.

By the way my position on this specialization aspect is simple: let's 
include nothing.
First, it adds relation to SKOS
Second, well, I feel that we're trying to do this to be more compliant 
with standards like ISO2788. But if we do it half-way (broaderGeneric 
and broaderInstantive but not broaderPartitive) that might look a bit 
shaky, even if there are valid motivations for doing so.

But if we include them anyway: I like very much the semantics Guus has 
proposed for broaderGeneric and broaderInstantive.

Cheers,

Antoine

> Hi there,
>
> If this can help, I can see the following top-level concept-to-concept
> relationships that may be implemented in skos, in addition to the one already
> mentioned:
>
> - relatedCausative (all the ones like causes/isCausedBy,
> benefitFrom/isBeneficialFor, affects/isAffectedBy, etc...)
>
> - relatedTermporal (all the ones like follows/precedes,
> developsFrom/developsInto)
>
> - relatedEssive (all the ones like isUsedAs/isUseOf, isDerivedFrom/isSourceOf
> , etc.)
>
> - relatedInstrumental (all the ones like growsln/isAGrowthEnvironmentFor,
> isMeansFor /isPerformedByMeansOf, etc.)
>
> but, I can see that we would like to limit to "a limited number of predefined
> specializations"... So maybe the aboves are just to keep in mind and will
> just be implemented in SKOS with the simple "related"...?
>
> regards
> Margherita
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Guus Schreiber
> Sent: 11 March 2008 15:59
> To: SWD WG
> Subject: ISSUE 37+56
>
>
>
> All, 
>
> Here are some thoughts about the specialization/extension issues. 
>
> Guus
>
> ISSUE 37 Skos Specialization http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37
> ISSUE 56 ReferenceSemanticRelationshipSpecializations
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56
>
> Here are some initial thoughts before proposing a resolution for these two
> issues. I suggest we propose no drastic changes, basically saying:
>
> 1. There are a limited number of predefined specializations in the SKOS
>    vocabulary, that are in common use in the thesaurus world
> 2. Vocabulary owners can define their own specializations by defining
>    subproperties of SKOS concepts, semantic relations and label
>    relations. The SKOS Reference and Primer contain examples as guidelines
>
> Ad 1.
>
> The current SKOS extension module predefines 8 specializations: namely 
> - broader/narrower-Generic/Instantive/Partitive
> - related-hasPart/PartOf
>
> The problem I see is that these specializations define two different ways of
> specifying part-whole relations. This may be very confusing. I suggest to
> keep only the intuitive one, namely "broader/narrower Partitive". I assume
> the "related" part-whole relations are typically used to link, for example,
> concepts in a hierarchy of products with concepts in a hierarchy of
> ingredients or materials. However, I suggest this should not be a
> *predefined* specialization.
>
> Wrt the semantics of the specializations: 
>
> * broaderGeneric
>
>   The strictest semantics would be to include the following axiom in
>   the SKOS scheme:  
>
>     skos:broaderGeneric rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf .
>
>   This also mean that subject and object of skos:broaderGeneric are
>   considered RDF/OWL classes (domain and range of rdfs:subClassOf is
>   rdfs:Class). This is fine in RDF/OWL Full but not in OWL DL.
>   Alternatively, we could also just state that it would be reasonable
>   for application developers to expect this interpretation to be a
>   correct one.
>
> * broaderInstantive
>
>   The strictest semantics would be to include the following axiom in
>   the SKOS scheme:  
>
>     skos:broaderInstantive rdf:subPropertyOf rdf:type .
>
>   Same discussion as above (in this case only the subject is a
>   RDF/OWL class). 
>
> Typical examples: 
>
>  ex:Asia skos:broaderInstantive ex:Continent .
>  ex:Rembrandt skos:broaderInstantive ex:Artist
>
>
> Ad 2.
>
> a. Subproperties of skos:related:
>
> typical examples: artist thesaurus
>   
>   ex:teacherOf rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:related .
>   (not symmetric)
>
>   ex:workedWith rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:related .
>   ex:workedWith rdf:type owl:Transitive Property .
>   (symmetry does not inherit, so needs to be specified explicitly)
>
> b. Subproperties of broader/barrower
>
> - Use as much as possible the predefined specializations
>
> @@ to be extended
>
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 16:54:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 March 2008 16:54:29 GMT