- From: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:10:27 -0400
- To: Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
If you don't inference all you will see are the direct links; it's an application specific inferencing issue. Polly hierarchy doesn't affect this (see Soergel , etc If all links are BT, it must be the case that everything about Emus must be about Animals. Otherwise at least one link on the path *must* be associative. Simon Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au> wrote: > G'day Simon, > > I understand what you're saying, but that is not really my objection. > > If someone wants to implement a polyhierarchical thesaurus, then > this kind of structure is quite common: > > Animals > | > | > Birds > | \ > | \ > | Australian Birds > | | | > | | | > Cockatoos Emus > > If <skos:broader> is non-transitive, then there is a single, > unambiguous way to represent this hierarchy. > > But if <skos:broader> is transitive, then asserting > > Cockatoos skos:broader Birds > > does *not* tell us whether the author intends a direct link between > Cockatoos and Birds in the hierarchy. > > Now, from a semantic reasoning point of view, the presence or > absence of this parent-child link is irrelevant: 'Birds' is broader > than 'Cockatoos' in either case. > > But it's *not* irrelevant in terms of how the thesaurus gets > presented to an end-user, and that's precisely my point. > > Regards, > > -- Stephen. > > Simon Spero wrote: >> Stephen- >> If you aren't using a reasoner, then you don't need to start doing >> so to introspect and undo the effects of using... a reasoner. >> If you are working with an rdf suite like Redland, and don't hook >> it up to an inference engine, you just get the direct assertions. >> You don't have to draw every conclusion entailed by ones knowledge >> base; the black lump lying on my feet is ki-chan. I do not need to >> access the fact that he is a eukaryote to know he's being friendly >> because he wants second breakfast; I only need to know that he's a >> cat. >> It's when you *publish* data that you need to take care not to use >> hierarchical relations in cases where the link is not truly >> hierarchic. >> Simon >> Sent from my iPhone >> On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Antoine, >>> >>> Yes, I am in favour of the current SKOS version. >>> >>> I strongly believe SKOS is most likely to see broad uptake if >>> people *don't* need SPARQL or some other RDF query dialect to do >>> useful things with it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- Stephen. >>>
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 14:11:09 UTC