Re: [SKOS] The return of ISSUE-44 (was Re: TR : SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 23 December 2007)

Hi Simon,

> On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello Simon, Dan (ccing this thread to the SWD list since it is again 
>> about important stuff)
>> -1
>> As far as I'm concerned, we are not trying to propose with SKOS a 
>> standard that would oblige KOS owners to re-engineer their conceptual 
>> structures to fit our whishes. The objective is to easily represent 
>> and to publish KOSs. So if there is enough cases of "non-transitive" 
>> hierarchies (and I do believe it is the case) then it is a wrong 
>> design decision to make skos:broader transitive.
>
>
> Is it better  to label these relationships with the terms 'broader'  
> and 'narrower' whilst defining them with the semantics of 'related'? 
> Wouldn't it be better to use the standard labels to denote the 
> standard semantics, and use a special label, disjoint from broader, 
> for the non-hierarchical hierarchies?

I said "non-transitive" and not "non-hierarchical" I do believe that 
there are "hierarchical" links (therefore, "broader"or "narrower"and not 
"related") that do not form a transitive hierarchy.

>
> The SKOS Core Guide[1] originally aligned itself with Z39.19/BS8723;  
> I feel it's a mistake to abandon the standard semantics without also 
> abandoning the standard labels. The Library of Congress adopted the 
> BT/NT labels for its syndetic relationships  in the LCSH, without 
> fixing the semantics; this has not proven helpful :-)
>
>
> Broader/Narrower Relationships
>
> To assert that one concept is broader in meaning (i.e. more general) 
> than another, where the scope (meaning) of one falls completely within 
> the scope of the other, use the skos:broader property. To assert the 
> inverse, that one concept is narrower in meaning (i.e. more specific) 
> than another, use the skos:narrower property.
> [...]
> The properties skos:broader and skos:narrower are transitive properties.
>
> See also section on hierarchies in BS8723.

I'm sorry but I don't have it...
I don't have ISO available right now, but I will check it.
As far as Z39.19 is concerned I cannot see a reference to something like 
transitivity (but I might have overlooked, I just read quickly the 
section on se;antic relations)
How about the following example:
mountains regions BTI Himalaya
Himalaya BTP Everest

Can we naturaly have Everest as a narrower term of montains regions? 
Does Z39.19 explicitly forbid that?

Antoine

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 09:46:10 UTC