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

Re: SKOS queries

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:11:43 +0200
Message-ID: <46FA76AF.5030707@few.vu.nl>
To: Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Quentin,
>
> I understood that skos:narrower and skos:broader are inverses. And I 
> guess my question is actually going to be covered as part of the f2f 
> in Amsterdam [1] in a few weeks time. My personal opinion is that 
> these should be transitive in a similar manner to rdfs:subClass in OWL 
> especially if users want to be able to get information through inference.

Do you have a specific application which requires this? For the moment 
my personal opinion is rather not enthousiastic about transitivity, and it's grounded in 
some practical concerns. I guess other workgroup member will come with 
strong arguments for transitivity, but the more practical cases we can discuss, 
the better...

>
> Another question that comes to mind is whether SKOS is intended to be 
> used as stand-alone or within an ontology. As part of the project I 
> work on, we have used SKOS properties such as skos:definition to 
> define concept label in OWL ontologies. But I also can see some 
> applications where SKOS can be used to represent thesaurus on its own.

Your sentence is unclear: do my scribblings in [1]  cover this problem?

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics
>
>
> Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2007, at 11:41, Quentin Reul wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have looked at different aspects of SKOS and I have got a few 
>>> questions as a result:
>>>
>>> First of all, I was wondering if there was any reasoner available to 
>>> create a thesaurus tree and find out all the different terms that 
>>> are "broader/narrower" for a given term.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the "broader/narrower" relationship is 
>>> transitive, i.e. if the user adds a term has being broader, this 
>>> term would have the previous term as narrower without having to add 
>>> the statement to the second term.
>>
>> Broader/narrower are intended to be *inverses*, which I think is what 
>> you mean here.
>>
>> The transitivity of broader/narrower is one of the topics that's up 
>> for discussion at the F2F. See "Semantic Relation Properties" in [1].
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>     Sean
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda
>>
>> -- 
>> Sean Bechhofer
>> School of Computer Science
>> University of Manchester
>> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
>> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Quentin H. Reul
> Computing Science
> University of Aberdeen
>
> +44 (0)1224 27 *4485*
> qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk
> http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 15:40:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:45 UTC