- From: <dlrubin@stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:00:30 -0700
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
- Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
There should be consistent semantics for all skos relations--applications should not be free to choose, as then you end up with inconsistent semantics across ontologies and non-interoperability. I think broader/narrower should be transitive, irreflexive, and cycles should be a contradiction. Daniel Quoting SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>: > > > ISSUE-44: BroaderNarrowerSemantics > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/44 > > Raised by: Alistair Miles > On product: SKOS > > What are the semantics of skos:broader and skos:narrower? There are > several open > questions: > > * Are they transitive? Intransitive? Or can the application choose? > * Are they reflexive? Irreflexive? Or can the application choose? > * Should the transitive closure be irreflexive (i.e. a cycle is a > contradiction)? Or can the application choose? > > > >
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 11:00:36 UTC