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

RE: [SKOS] proposal for ISSUE-83 SemanticsOfSchemeContainmentProperties

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:03:46 +0100
To: "'Antoine Isaac'" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "'SWD WG'" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c8c1d7$e57ad160$b0707420$@miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 27 May 2008 17:09
> To: SWD WG
> Subject: [SKOS] proposal for ISSUE-83
> SemanticsOfSchemeContainmentProperties
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'd like to propose the following resolution to ISSUE-83
> SemanticsOfSchemeContainmentProperties [1]
> 
> PROPOSAL: to add to the SKOS reference that the graph:
> ex:cs skos:hasTopConcept ex:c.
> entails the graph:
> ex:c skos:inScheme ex:cs
> But *not* to add extra semantics regarding the combination of
> skos:hasTopConcept, skos:broader/skos:narrower and skos:inScheme
> properties

I support this.

Cheers,

Alistair.

> 
> --- Explanation of the issue:
> This issue was raised by a comment from Margherita saying that she was
> using the combination of skos:hasTopConcept, skos:narrower to infer
> scheme containment for concepts [2]
> The initial (assumed) position is that if we have the following
> statements
> [
> ex:cs skos:hasTopConcept ex:c1
> ex:c1 skos:narrower ex:c2
> ]
> then we can infer that both c1 and c2 belong to the concept scheme
> ex:cs
> 
> --- Motivation for resolution:
> I think there in sense in having, for the above example, the inference
> that ex:c1 belong to ex:cs. Not saying so would intuitively amount to
> support cases where concept schemes have as top concepts concepts that
> do not belong to them, which is weird.
> But I'm sure we cannot allow the second entailment (ex:cs2 belong to
> ex:cs). ex:c2 might not indeed belong to the scheme ex:cs, since we
> have
> resolved that skos:narrower and skos:broader can be asserted for
> concepts that belong to different schemes (among others, as a side
> effect of having skos:broadMatch a sub-property of skos:broader [3])
> 
> Note: there is a note in the current version of the Reference about
> this
> [4], but I think it could be made stronger: hence my proposing this
> resolution
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/83
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/master.html#L4160
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/master.html#L2446
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 22:04:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 May 2008 22:04:48 GMT