- From: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:00:35 -0000
- To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Cc: 'Sören Auer' <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Richard, I'm not sure SKOS prescribes in detail what conceptual relationships qualify for broader/narrower. If the vocabulary in question is an ontology, then there will be very rigorous rules for each relationship it includes. If the vocabulary in question is a thesaurus complying with ISO 2788 or BS 8723-2, The rules are not quite so rigorous, but they exist nonetheless. Broader/narrower relationships are permitted when: (a) the concepts are generically related, for example plants/trees or furniture/chairs; (b) one concept is an instance of a broader one, for example islands/Sicily or languages/French (c) sometimes, when one concept is a part of another, for example eyes/irises or battalions/regiments. But notice that not all whole/part relationships are eligible for the BT/NT relationship - the most common allowed cases are for parts of the body, geographical locations, disciplines, and hierarchical social structures. See fuller explanations in BS 8723-2 clause 8.3. If the vocabulary is a taxonomy or a classification scheme, then the rules of hierarchy tend to be much looser. It is convenient in a library or a bookshop to be able to browse through, for example, the Chemistry shelves to find books about chemical elements, chemical laboratories and even chemists. (Read more about this in the forthcoming BS 8723-3.) So to use your example, a thesaurus should not allow German politicians to be treated as a narrower term of Germany (although conceivably these could be considered as related terms). But a taxonomy or a classification scheme could allow you to organise these classes hierarchically if you wished. While SKOS maintains the ambition of serving a range of vocabulary types, it will probably have to be hospitable to allowing you to define as "broader" anything that takes your fancy. I am tempted to suggest some interesting broader categories for persons such as Tony Blair and George Bush, but in the name of polite conversation will resist. Cheers Stella ***************************************************** Stella Dextre Clarke Information Consultant Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK Tel: 01235-833-298 Fax: 01235-863-298 SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk ***************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Cyganiak Sent: 17 February 2007 17:46 To: public-esw-thes@w3.org Cc: Sören Auer Subject: Exactly what does broader/narrower mean? Hi all, A quick question. In Wikipedia, there are often category hierarchies like this: Germany | +-- German politicians Can this be translated to SKOS? If Germany and German politicians are skos:Concepts, then is there a skos:broader relationship between them? I'm a bit concerned that one isn't really a sub-topic of the other. To phrase the question differently: Is there a clear test to decide if A skos:broader B? For RDFS class hierarchies it's simple: A rdfs:subClassOf B iff all instances of A are also instances of B. What would be the equivalent rule for SKOS? Cheers, Richard
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 13:00:57 UTC