W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: ISSUE-44: BroaderNarrowerSemantics

From: <dlrubin@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:00:30 -0700
Message-ID: <20070615040030.zd82d9tqmsw04s00@webmail.stanford.edu>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC