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

Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-148]

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:58:27 +0100
Message-Id: <27E550BB-AD06-49B7-AD40-E03D5554E335@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>

Dear Erik,

thanks for your comments [1,ISSUE-148]:

While it makes good sense to have an abstract base to handle unexpected
cases, the draft acknowledges in Section 8.6.7. Reflexivity of  
and Section 8.6.8. Cycles in the Hierarchical Relation (Reflexivity of
skos:broaderTransitive) that many applications expect hierarchical
relationships to be irreflexive and noncyclical.

Given that this requirement will be quite common, is it appropriate to
leave it as an exercise for each application to solve in a different  
Or would it be better to define subproperties with these constraints so
this common requirement can be addressed by common SKOS infrastructure?


We appreciate and understand your comments relating to the provision  
of standardised relationships. With SKOS (as with any vocabulary) the  
WG had to make decisions as to "when to stop" in terms of providing  
standardised vocabulary. As discussed in the SKOS Primer [2], custom  
extensions may be defined. In this case, we have decided to leave  
this as an exercise for the community and propose to *close* this  
issue, making no change at this point.

This does not, of course close the door on the possibility of  
standardised extensions in the future.

Are you able to live with this?.


	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-148] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/148
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization

Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:59:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:54 UTC