W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > August 2005

Re: SKOS Extensions ... broaderDirect/narrowerDirect ... ?&In-Reply-To=<F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3D

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:46:10 +0200
Message-ID: <430F0102.8070005@cs.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org


OK, if you can do without direct relationships then don't use them, 
because of the open world assumption. (Still wondering about possible 
use cases that I can't think of myself, maybe Antoine has cooked up 
one in the meantime?) A few notes:

- it's not a question of "inferred/implied" vs. "asserted". You can 
also have a graph which already asserts the transitive statements 
itself, or e.g. only half of them (for whatever reason). You still 
need to distinguish between direct and non-direct.

- sometimes you just want to distinguish between the direct and 
non-direct parents (e.g. browser tool). Open world or not, at that 
point you close it. (THis open world assumption keeps bugging me for 
this kind of reason.)


Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>>"Directness" is relative. I expect query tools and databases 
>>(eg. built 
>>on SPARQL) will
>>be used by applications who do care to know whether some relationship 
>>(eg. subClassOf)
>>is directly asserted, versus implied, within a particular 
> I'm with Dan, I think we should leave it to the tools to tell us whether the relationship is asserted or inferred.  I'm happy to drop the idea of a 'broaderDirect' property in the SKOS Extensions vocabulary.
> Cheers,
> Al.

  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 11:46:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:22 UTC