W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2008

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:20:05 +0100
Message-ID: <47861B85.5000700@few.vu.nl>
To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
CC: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Simon,
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> 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?
> I can't remember if Z39.19 explicitly prohibits this, but my personal 
> belief is that it BTI and BTP are distinct relationships.
> The logical test for   BT = BTG + BTP could be described as "is or is 
> part of a ";  Everest "is or is part of a " Mountain regions"  
> undoubtedly holds

Yes, but a true transitive BT that gathers all your possible 
interpretations (BTG.BTP is only one combination) should then lead to a 
logical test that tests the whether the link matches one among all the 
possible combinations of "is part of" and "is a" ("A is a part of B 
which is a C which is a part of a part of a D" and so on).
I don't think you would thus obtain something that your standards still 
recommend. I guess that actually your "is or is part of a " already 
falls out of what is considered good practice for thesaurus engineering. 
Andof course departs from the "precise meaning" that you advocate for 

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 13:20:33 UTC

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