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

Re: AW: AW: [SKOS] Transitive broader and ISSUE-56 (was The return of ISSUE-44 )

From: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:13:16 -0500
Message-Id: <D1E85BF9-6DD9-46F1-BFC0-E7495CD99122@madcreek.com>
Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

Hi Antoine,

Personally I'm starting to find it useful to think of SKOS 'Core' as  
primarily supporting interoperability between different types of KOS  
in a minimal way, much like 'Simple' Dublin 'Core'. Maybe this has  
been obvious to everyone else, but many of our discussions seem to  
make it hard for me to keep in mind. As you point out so well, SKOS  
is infinitely extensible to support the 'local' needs of any KOS  
without losing it's 'core' support of interoperability. It seems to  
me that it's well worth emphasizing the points you make about  
extensibility in section 4.7 in other sections of the document  
wherever we've run up against a clear yet unrequited need for  
extended semantics (like you did in section 2.3 for skos:broader) as  
well as the introduction.

Your use of the phrase "core SKOS features" and this discussion make  
me regret somewhat the loss of the 'Core' part of SKOS Core.


BTW the link to section 4.4 in section 4.7 actually links to section 2.3

On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> Hi Lars,
>>>> We could invent two new properties skos:broaderTransitive (a
>>>> subproperty of skos:broader)	and skos:narrowerTransitive (a
>>>> subproperty of skos:narrower) which both are declared as  
>>>> transitive.
>>>> Could this be a solution?
>>> Well I did not mean to coin standard properties there, but I
>>> think your
>>> wish technically matches what I just wrote yesterday for the  
>>> editor's
>>> draft of the primer :-)
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer (in section  
>>> 4.7, the
>>> very last lines of the document)
>> Nice. Just what I intended. Is there a chance those could make it  
>> into
>> the standard?
> I'm not sure this would be 100% safe, as multiple ways of  
> specializing skos:broader can be thought of, cf ISSUE-56 [1]
> And these mixes, leading to possibly confusing hierarchies for  
> newcomers: consider the combination of "transitive"and "partitive"  
> specializations. We can specialize skos.broader into  
> skos:broaderTransitive, skos:broaderPartitive,  
> skos:broaderTransitivePartitive. If we consider other axes of  
> specialization (e.g. for "generic" and "instance" flavors of  
> hierarchy) this would blur the picture even more...
> On the other hand, given the number of reactions we had on this  
> transitive aspect of broader, we might just decide to introduce  
> only transitiveBroader, as an acknowledgement of the interest it  
> gained.
> Whatever, ISSUE-56 is still open, and comments are welcome!
> Antoine
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 15:13:30 UTC

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