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

Re: ISSUE-150: Last Call Comment: Subsumption hierarchies

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:18:53 +0200
Message-ID: <48FF7C9D.3000306@few.vu.nl>
To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org

Sounds good!

Antoine

> Here is a draft response to Erik on issue 150, comments welcome.
>
> --- begin draft message ---
>
> Dear Erik,
>
> Thank you for your helpful comments. In response to your comment
> below:
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:18:49PM +0000, SWD Issue Tracker wrote:
>   
>> ISSUE-150: Last Call Comment: Subsumption hierarchies
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/150
>>
>> Raised by: Alistair Miles
>> On product: SKOS
>>
>> Raised by Erik Hennum in [1]:
>>
>> """
>> We've had a need to distinguish subsumptive relations (for which we
>> currently use the SKOS broaderGeneric / narrowerGeneric extension) from
>> broader relations where the broader concept is not fully subsumptive.
>>
>> For instance, there is consensus in our target audience that the concept of
>> Linux subsumes the concept of RedHat Linux.  By contrast, the High
>> Availability concept subsumes the overall purpose but not the operational
>> tasks associated with the Disaster Recovery concept.  (In passing,
>> subsumption relations seem much more common between proper-noun concepts
>> than between general concepts.)
>>
>> The distinction is important because subsumption is much more reliable for
>> qualifying content during search applications (and can be treated as
>> strongly transitive).  Has the committee considered carrying forward this
>> experimental distinction from the previous version of SKOS as an optional
>> subproperty of broader / narrower?
>> """
>>     
>
> Yes, the working group has considered carrying forward the
> experimental extensions to skos:broader and skos:narrower. This was
> discussed as ISSUE-56. In May the WG resolved to postpone this issue
> [2], because we do not yet have sufficient information on how to embed
> the specialisations in the current SKOS model. The view was that
> further work, in particular on patterns and conventions for using SKOS
> and OWL in combination, was required before a standard set of
> extensions could be proposed.
>
> We encourage the development and publication of third-party extensions
> to the SKOS data model within the community of practice. The SKOS
> Reference (section 8.6.3) and the SKOS Primer (section 4.7) provide
> information and examples of how to do this.
>
> Can you live with the postponement of this issue?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alistair
> Sean
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
> [ISSUE-56] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#item02
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2008 19:19:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 October 2008 19:19:22 GMT