- From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:34:59 +0100
- To: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Ok seems also reasonable to me to allow users to define transitivity.... -----Original Message----- From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ed Summers Sent: 17 December 2007 19:25 To: public-swd-wg@w3.org; public-esw-thes@w3.org Subject: Re: [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics Thanks to all for this gentle schooling in how important the broader/narrower transitivity issue is--especially for the Library of Congress Subject Headings. I must admit, I had no idea that the broader/narrower semantics in LCSH were this flawed, and recognized as such even when they were first introduced in 1988 [1]. I suppose if the semantics around broader/narrower were declared to be transitive the SKOS representation of LCSH would simply be making explicit this implicit brokenness. Who knows it could be a tool for gradually improving LCSH along the lines that Margherita mentions...but the problems seem quite endemic. I'm curious though: what are the disadvantages of having SKOS say nothing about broader/narrower transitivity, and letting users define these triples if they are important for their application? This would allow looser KOS like LCSH to be represented in roughly the same way as more rigorous KOS. Developers who desired inferencing across broader/narrower could then add triples stating that transitivity. Is the perception that this would drastically reduce the interoperability of SKOS data, and if so how? //Ed [1] Dykstra, Mary. "LC Subject Headings Disguised as Thesaurus", Library Journal, March 1, 1988, p 42-46.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 18:35:33 UTC