SKOS exactMatch Inclusion - a question concerning ISSUE75

Dear All,

I am using SKOS for terminology mapping, as well as mapping validation. 
I have a question concerning exactMatch inclusions:
Is it correct, or at least is it conventionally correct to have the 
entailment below?

<A> skos:broaderTransitive <B> .
<B> skos:exactMatch <C> .
...entails:
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <C>.

It is similay to the question raised in ISSUE 75 (
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/75),
where decisions are made that
<A> skos:broadMatch <B> .
<B> skos:exactMatch <C> .
does not entail:
<A> skos:broadMatch <C> .

I can understand this, because skos:broadMatch itself is not transitive,
<A> skos:broadMatch <B> .
<B> skos:broadMatch <C> .
also does not entail:
<A> skos:broadMatch <C> .

But meanwhile, with inference, 
{ <A> skos:broadMatch <B> } => { <A> skos:broaderTransitive <B> }.
{ <B> skos:broadMatch <C> } => { <B> skos:broaderTransitive <C> }.
it can be entailed:
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <C> .

Therefore, with the definition of skos:exactMatch
'The property skos:exactMatch is used to link two concepts, indicating a 
high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used 
interchangeably across a wide range of information retrieval applications. 
skos:exactMatch is a transitive property.'
I am wondering when both properties are transitive, like below 
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <B> .
<B> skos:exactMatch <C> .
can we entail ?
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <C> .


In addition, the resolution of ISSUE 75 is made as below,
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain 
axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them

A use case I encountered is that in terminology mapping, e.g. between 
concept scheme A and B
suppose it exists:
<A1> skos:broader <A2>.
<B1> skos:exactMatch <A1>.
it would be useful to entail the relation between <B1> and <A2>.

How's your opinion on this? Thanks!

Kind Regards,

Hong Sun | Agfa HealthCare
Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 8108