RE: TGN place types (broader/narrower spanning ConceptSchemes)

Hi Vladimir,

Answer on the part where you addressed my remarks.
Thanks for steering this interesting discussion.

Regards,

Johan De Smedt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Alexiev [mailto:vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:43 PM
[...cut...]
> ----
>
> Johan De Smedt> Sofia broader transitive Bulgaria is not meaningless.
>
> I did not say that. I said Sofia skos:broaderTransitive Country is
> meaningless.
> It makes no sense to compose BTP-BTI.

 [Johan De Smedt>]
Correct, but the point was that is skos:broaderTransitive has no other
semantics that the existence of some skos hierarchical path
So if in one concept scheme we have Sofia BTP Bulgaria BTI Country, then
Sofia BTTransitive only asserts the path (which is as I acknowledge, is poor
semantics)

>
> > I agree it misses more clear semantic details between the linked
> > concept.
> > That more semantic expressiveness is to be handled using dedicated
> > ontologies.
>
> iso-thes defines BTG, BTI, BTP. I think it better also define their
> composability.

 [Johan De Smedt>]
This has not been fully developed by ISO 25964, especially not when mixing
BTG/BTP/BTI
It would also require separate transitive properties
a) BTG can mean a class/sub-class relationship in which case it is very
sensible to allow for any path of BTG/NTG to have a transitive closure
BTG-transitive/NTG-transitive
- So: Bulgarian citizen BTG EU citizen BTG World Citizen leads to Bulgarian
Citizen BTG-transitive World-Citizen
b) mixing BTG and BTI is more complicated.
- Vladimir BTI Bulgarian citizen BTG EU citizen BTG World citizen may lead
to:
- Vladimir BTI-transitive Bulgarian citizen; EU citizen; World Citizen.
Typically I find it more clear to model this separately - e.g. using OWL
classes and rdf:type (Christophe already made this argument), or using
collection/member models).
BTP relations typically hold even more abstractions. (your point above)

ISO-25964 reported (and cautioned) in part 2 on possible transition paths
from thesaurus to ontology.
The conclusion was that there is no uniform way to achieve this and case by
case analysis was needed.

Hence composability of BTI/BTP/BTG was not an achievable goal (my
understanding).

However, I am open for suggestions and follow this thread with interest.

>
> ------------
[...cut...]

Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 04:18:12 UTC