- From: Diego Berrueta <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:30:49 +0200
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
El vie, 15-06-2007 a las 09:25 +0000, SWD Issue Tracker escribió: > 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? I agree with Daniel. In my opinion, letting applications to choose the semantics is not a good idea; these properties should be transitive, irreflexive and cycle-free. Moreover, if we finally agree on this, we should change the SKOS documents to clarify this point. For instance, the definition of skos:broader now reads "A concept that is more general in meaning", but probably it should be changed to "A concept that is *strictly* more general in meaning". I think this has also an impact in the vocabulary mapping. For instance, the cycle-free property makes impossible to import the OWL idiom of making two classes equivalent by declaring them to be mutually subClassOf each other. In other words, since the SKOS vocabulary mapping is still a draft, people with an OWL background might be tempted to express equivalence between SKOS concepts from two different schemas using crossed "broader" (or "narrower") relationships. Best regards, -- Diego Berrueta R&D Department - CTIC Foundation E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org Phone: +34 984 29 12 12 Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 11:30:56 UTC