- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:23:49 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Thomas Baker" <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On 5 Oct 2007, at 12:39, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry again for being too late for the meeting packet. > > As input to the "Semantic Relation Properties" topic, I've written > a strawman semantics for skos:broader, skos:narrower and > skos:related ... > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ > SemanticRelations/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=6> > > As with the other strawmen, this proposal tries to make the least > ontological commitment, and cater for the different needs of our > use cases. > > As I see it, the main decision points for this topic are: > > * skos:broader is transitive? (yes/no/maybe) > * skos:broader is intransitive? (yes/no/maybe) > * skos:broader is reflexive? (yes/no/maybe) > * skos:broader is irreflexive? (yes/no/maybe) > * skos:broader cycles are an error? (yes/no/maybe) > > [1] answers "maybe" to all five questions, to give the most > flexibility; everything else should not be contentious. [[ This also means that skos:broader MAY be interpreted as a reflexive property (every conceptual resource is broader than itself). This would necessarily follow from asserting that rdfs:subClassOf is a sub- property of skos:broader (see also [@@TODO SKOS+OWL Patterns]). ]] I don't believe that this is the case. Asserting that rdf:subClassOf is a sub-property of skos:broader doesn't mean that skos:broader is necessarily reflexive. Sean -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 12:24:42 UTC