Re: broader and broaderMatch... and BT???

Hi Christophe, Antoine and all,

Personally I'm a fan of keeping SKOS terminology self-describing where 
possible (and therefore would argue against using "BT"/"NT"/"RT" within 
SKOS).

A thought -- what about simply using:

   skos:broadInScheme
   skos:narrowInScheme
   skos:relatedInScheme

This would then follow a construction similar to skos:broadMatch and 
match the terminology of existing vocab terms such as skos:inScheme.

Regards,
-- Stephen.

Christophe Dupriez wrote:
> Dear Antoine,
> 
> Reading this (and seing my (reasonable) difficulties to apply SKOS to 
> real life problems), I would like to insist that the frame defined by 
> previous ISO standards for thesauri be kept and supplemented. This may 
> seem bottom-up compared to the apparent top-down process to define SKOS: 
> it is alway better when stalagmites join stalagtites !
> 
> For my own stuff, I will implement:
> 
> skos:semanticRelation
> |
> +- skos:related
> |   |
> |   +- ???:RT
> |   |  (disjoint from)
> |   +- skos:relatedMatch
> |
> +- skos:broaderTransitive (disjoint from related and narrowerTransitive)
> |   |
> |   +— skos:broader
> |       |
> |       +- ???:BT
> |       |  (disjoint from)
> |       +- skos:broadMatch
> |
> +— skos:narrowerTransitive (disjoint from related and broaderTransitive)
>     |
>     +- skos:narrower
>         |
>         +- ???:NT
>         |  (disjoint from)
>         +- skos:narrowMatch
> 
> 
> Please note that "BT <union> broadMatch" does not cover "broader" 
> because "broader" may cross scheme boundaries and "BT" cannot.
> If you add the concept of "subScheme" (micro-thesaurus), "BT" should not 
> cross micro-thesaurus borders.
> 
> With "RT", you can cross micro-thesaurus borders but not scheme boundaries.
>

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 13:20:30 UTC