- From: Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:31:55 +1100
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Leonard, Leonard Will wrote: > It just means that within the [Keyword AAA] scheme it is valid to > pre-coordinate these concepts into strings such as > > FLEET MANAGEMENT : COMMITTEES > > or > > LEGAL SERVICES : COMMITTEES : Agenda > >> To date, my experience using SKOS has been very positive -- the loose >> semantic rules around SKOS make it very quick and easy to do useful work >> with it. > > As far as I know, SKOS has not yet been developed to represent > pre-coordinated strings of concepts of this type. It would be a gross > distortion of the relationships to implement Keyword AAA's use of BT/NT > as though these were valid thesaural relationships. True. What I'm actually doing is translating Keyword AAA into a fully-expanded version of the pre-coordinated strings, i.e. <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://www.naa.gov.au/kaaa/fleet.management-committees"> <skos:prefLabel>FLEET MANAGEMENT - Committees</skos:prefLabel> <skos:broader rdf:resource="http://www.naa.gov.au/kaaa/fleet.management" /> </skos:Concept> While the resulting document obviously contains more entries, it also makes the available thesaurus hierarchies much clearer. <snip> > I have not seen a convincing illustration of the need to represent > intransitive BT/NT relationships, or examples of intransitive > relationships which still conform to thesaurus standards. I would > therefore prefer SKOS to assume that such relationships are > transitive until someone demonstrates the need for more complexity. My argument would simply be this: The <skos:narrower /> element comes with a set of common sense, plain English semantic assumptions. Subclassing this element allows us to simply say "all of the above, *plus* it is now transitive". On the other hand, it is less useful to assume transitivity and say "it is no longer transitive", because a negative assertion is weaker than a positive one. For example, is there such a thing as "partially transitive" (less than 3 degrees of separation)? Regards, -- Stephen.
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 13:32:12 UTC