- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:30:59 +0200
- To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Dear Andrew, > It also seems to me that there is a problem with this flip/flop of > skos:broader and skos:narrower being transitive. SKOS now specifies > skos:broader and skos:narrower to be non-transitive, but > skos:broaderTransitive and skos:narrowerTransitive are a sub-property > of skos:broader and skos:narrower respectively. This implies to me, > not being an RDF/OWL expert, that skos:broaderTransitive and > skos:narrowerTransitive inherit non-transtivity from skos:broader and > skos:narrower respectively, and that just seems funky since you are > saying that the relationship is transitive. > The problem of transitivity "inheritance" (or more precisely non-inheritance) problem has been many times raised, and many mails have been written about it. Cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0102.html Now, I'm afraid we cannot do otherwise. Whatever being the naming decisions in the end: - there is need non-transitive "broader-as-asserted" property (skos:broader) - there is a need for a transitive "broader-as-get-me-all-ancestors" (skos:broaderTransitive) - there is a need to infer that every asserted direct broader statement shall be interpreted in a way that allows to get a transitive version of the hierarchy (I assume that you too have this requirement) And for the third you have no choice but to declare the first property a subproperty of the second. That's just the way OWL is made, even if it may appear counter-intuitive :-( The nice thing is that in OWL doing so does not enforce skos:broader to be transitive... Best, Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 08:31:31 UTC