- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:37:23 -0000
- To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
*Doug, Ceri wrote: > > 4. Not everyone considers Related (RTs) to be necessarily > symmetric (eg the AAT does not). Could 'symmetric' not be an > optional property of the relationship? > I propose we change the comment of the skos:related property to indicate that this property should NOT be considered as symmetric. We then add an extension skos:relatedSymmetric (as a sub-prop of skos:related) to be used in the case where related IS considered to be symmetric. *Doug, Ceri: > 5. Is there any possibility of defining at least one subtype > of Related? Eg a Partitive (see below)? > > 6. Good to have subtypes of the hierarchical relationships > but note that broader/narrowerPartitive is often restricted > to members of the same hierarchy (see Aitchison&Gilchrist). > In other cases, a Related relationship type is recommended. > To accommodate the cases where the partitve relationship is treated as an associative relationship (and NOT as hierarchical), I suggest we add two extensions to SKOS-Core: skos:relatedPartOf (sub-prop of skos:related) skos:relatedHasPart (sub-prop of skos:related) ... So then users have the option to use either the hierarchical or associative style properties to express the partitive relation, depending on preference. Al.
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 08:37:35 UTC