- From: Alasdair J G Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:46:35 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
- CC: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>, al@jku.at, iperez@babel.ls.fi.upm.es, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <47D654FB.4080207@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Hi Antoine, I've got to admit that in reading the SKOS Primer [2], in particular sections 2.3.1 and 4.7, I became very confused as to the properties of skos:broader and skos:broaderTransitive. In particular the fact that skos:broaderTransitive is a super property of skos:broader. However, reading your mail below has cleared things up for me. Perhaps the primer should be more explicit in the difference. Cheers, Alasdair [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/ Antoine Isaac wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > Two objections to your mail: > > 1. I still don't get it why ISO2788 says BT *should* be transitive. Of > course there can be interpretations that leads to this, but it's still > not 100% clear to me. Can you quote a sentence that makes you say so? > > 2. In the exemple you give, SKOS does not prohibit A broader C. We say > that broader is *not transitive*, that different from saying that it > is *intransitive* (or "antitrantisitive") ! "transitivity does not > hold" does *not* mean that (NOT A broader C) is valid in all cases. > > Maybe actually point 2 is an answer to point 1, if you got our > proposal for skos:broader semantics wrong. > To sum up: > - from A skos:broader B, B skos:broader C you cannot automatically > infer A skos:broader C: there are concept schemes for which this would > be assuming too much coherence for the hierarchical links. > - there can be concept schemes for which the co-existence A > skos:broader B, B skos:broader C and A skos:broader C is OK. Maybe all > thesauri that are compliant with ISO2788, if ISO2788 say BT is always > transitive. But the A skos:broader C was in that case produced by some > knowledge that is not in the SKOS semantics. > > Does it make the situation clearer? You can also go to [1], when > Alistair noticed this subtle differences (that had been also > interfering with the SWD working group discussions) > > Best, > > Antoine > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Dec/0052.html > > -------- Message d'origine-------- > De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Simon Spero > Date: ven. 07/03/2008 23:58 > À: al@jku.at > Cc: iperez@babel.ls.fi.upm.es; SKOS > Objet : Re: Suggestion for SKOS FAQ > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Andreas Langegger <al@jku.at> wrote: > > > > > thanks for the pointer to issue-44. I didn't read deep into the thread. > > But as Antoine pointed out, there is the transitive version also > (obviously > > the result of the issue-44 discussion). So both kinds of semantics > can be > > expressed in the model and are not defined by the application. > > > > The problem with the introduction of an intransitive "broader" > relationship > is that such a relationship is fundamentally incompatible with the Broader > Term relationship as defined in ISO-2788 et. al. > > The defining characteristic of hierarchical relationships is that > they are > totally inclusive. This property absolutely requires transitivity. > If this > condition does not apply, the relationship is associative, not > hierarchical. > Renaming the broader and narrower term relationships doesn't change > this; > all it has done is cause confusion. > > As an example of the confusion so caused, note that associative > relationships remain disjoint from broaderTransitive (S24)? If > "broader" > can be intransitive, this constraint is inexplicable. > > Let A,B,C be Concepts, > A broader B, > B broader C, > > and suppose that transitivity does not hold ( NOT A broader C) > > By S18, we have > A broaderTransitive B, > B broaderTransitive C, > By S21, > A broaderTransitive C > > and hence, by S24, > NOT A related B, > NOT B related C, > NOT A related C > > We have NOT A broader C and NOT A related C, so there can't be any > relationship between A and C at all! > > Simon > -- Dr Alasdair J G Gray http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~agray/ Explicator project http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk/ Office: F161 Tel: +44 141 330 6292 Postal: Computing Science, 17 Lilybank Gardens, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 09:50:52 UTC