- From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:44:20 +0100
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 at 15:46:28, Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote >I had a go at improving the preamble to section 8, but I'm afraid I may >have made it worse not better :) I'm particularly not sure the use of >"ancestor" and "descendant" helps. > >I'd be very grateful if you could take a quick look: > >http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/master.html#semantic-relati >ons Personally I find the use of "ancestor" and "descendant" to be helpful, especially when contrasted with "parent" and "child" (these latter terms are commonly used in the thesaurus community). I still wonder about the actual cases where transitivity is a real issue, though. In thesaurus work, when necessary, we distinguish three types of hierarchical relationship: generic (is_a), partitive (is_part_of) and instantial (is_an_instance_of). The instance relationship is a special case of the generic relationship, where the narrower concept is a "class-of-one", commonly identified by a proper name, and therefore has no narrower relationships. If applied properly, so that they are universally true within the field covered by the thesaurus, generic and partitive relationships separately are transitive, but a mixture of them is not. Thesaurus standards recommend that partitive relationships should normally be used only for a few specific types of concept, viz: systems and organs of the body, geographical locations, disciplines or fields of discourse and hierarchical social structures. Instead of using the terms "broaderTransitive" and "broader", it would be clearer and in keeping with thesaurus practice to use "broaderGeneric", "broaderPartitive" and "broaderInstantial" as well as the general relationship "broader" (which would not be transitive if it allowed a mixture of the specific types). Is there any other type of "broader/narrower" relationship that is not covered by these types? I seem to recall being told previously that because SKOS had to accommodate existing thesauri, some of which did not apply the relationship rules rigorously, a more general approach had to be taken, but I am not yet convinced (though open to argument!). If we have an invalid relationship, such as the one Simon Spero quoted from LCSH: Technological innovations BT Creative ability in technology then I suppose it can be labelled by the general, intransitive, BT relationship until the editors have time to correct it to RT. ("Innovations" are not kinds or parts of "ability"). Leonard Will -- Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will) Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276 L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 20:45:06 UTC