- From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:08:13 -0500
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Antoine, > In fact having thesauri published with only skos:broaderTransitive > (and not skos:broader) is quite bad practice. Where have you seen this? Except the fact that it is stated in the specification that by convention it shouldn't be done, could you elaborate a little bit more one this assertion: "having thesauri published with only skos:broaderTransitive (and not skos:broader) is quite bad practice". So, what makes it a bad practice, and what are the core reasons. This may be illustrate with some usecases. > Indeed, the original idea is that the vocabulary providers would start > publish assertions with skos:broader/narrower. > Then broader/narrowerTransitive statements could be infered, and > materialized either by the thesaurus publisher or by a data consumer. > Note that there is no real interpretation freedom here. The transitive > properties are defined as super-properties of the unspecified ones. > This means that everytime you have a skos:broader statement between > two concepts, the semantics of SKOS imply that there is a > skos:broaderTransitive statement holding as well. Yes, but if I know they are transitive as the thesaurus publisher, why couldn't I use skos:broaderTransitive directly? I have some issues understanding why this convention has been put in place in the SKOS spec (probably by lack of knowledge on some of the underlying usecases of SKOS). Thanks! Take care, Fred
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:08:32 UTC