RE: skos:related

Chaals wrote:
>The two proposals are 
> just alternate
> labels for the same concepts, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, they are.  It's a question of convenience.

Al.

> 
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair)  wrote:
> 
> >
> >Just reread this more carefully from Leonard:
> >
> >---
> >In most conventional thesauri, "related" relationships are treated as
> >symmetric, even though more precise specification would 
> recognise that
> >many of them are directional, e.g. activity/agent, process/product,
> >cause/effect and so on.
> >
> >If such a conventional thesaurus is encoded in SKOS format, 
> should such
> >relationships be shown as "skos:relatedSymmetric", that being the way
> >they are treated, or should they be given the more general coding
> >"skos:related", leaving the way open to refine the nature of the
> >relationship in future?
> >---
> >
> >Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
> >
> >Al.
> >
> >
> >---
> >Alistair Miles
> >Research Associate
> >CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> >Building R1 Room 1.60
> >Fermi Avenue
> >Chilton
> >Didcot
> >Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> >United Kingdom
> >Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> >Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> >
> >
> 
> Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  
> tel: +61 409 134 136
> SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): 
> +33 4 92 38 78 22
>  Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
>

Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 08:14:06 UTC