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: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:42:36 +0100
Message-ID: <478B90FC.10804@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,

The Core guide reads

> 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 
> <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#broader>| property

The current Primer reads the same, as well as the Reference.
I think this is rather compatible with ISO 2788 for instance.



> On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> 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.
> Can somebody explain to me what 'broader' and 'narrower', unqualified, 
> mean now? 
> Given that the whole semantics of SKOS are now completely undefined, 
> and that the core guide is going to have to be completely rewritten, 
> what do these terms mean.
> We know that they can't be *any* kind of orderings.   
> We know that they can't be  associative relationships, because 
> otherwise they'd just be called relationships.  We know that the 
> language used in the SKOS Core Guide has previously been  taken from 
> and aligned with Z39.19 et al, but that this is no longer acceptable. 
> Just calling an associative relationship hierarchical does not make it 
> so.  The LC made tried that  twenty years ago.  Mary Dykstra(1988) 
> explained the problems  with this approach (if you haven't read this 
> article, it's very helpful background for this discussion).
> I I have no problem with SKOS being used to represent false claims; 
> I'm working with the LCSH, which, being of Congress, is riddled with 
> the things. Redefining an existing concept so as to make the false 
> claims become true brings in to question the whole exercise.  'Sorry 
> if I'm sounding like a broken record on this, but the broadening that 
> I'm most afraid of is  the whole thing going pear-shaped. 
> If having a transitive broader is too problematic, can we at least 
> remove   unqualified broader and narrower completely? 
> Simon
> [Dykstra(1988)] Mary Dykstra. LC Subject Headings Disguised as a 
> Thesaurus. /Library Journal/, 113(4):p42 , March 1988. ISSN 03630277. 
> URL http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? 
> direct=true&db=aph&AN=6547855&site=ehost-live.
> Making hierarchical relationships non hierarchical 
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 16:42:57 UTC

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