W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: Comment: ISSUE-70

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:33:33 +0100
To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, "Deridder, Jody L" <rde2@utk.edu>
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DAF18@hqgiex01.fao.org>

I also vote for the irreflexivity... Unless, we find real examples why should
not be.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Sean Bechhofer 
	Sent: Tue 12/02/2008 15:40 
	To: Deridder, Jody L 
	Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: Comment: ISSUE-70

	On 11 Feb 2008, at 02:10, Deridder, Jody L wrote:
	> This is related to Issue-69.
	> <A> skos: broader <B> .
	> <B> skos: broader <A>.
	> is again, nonsense.  If B is a subset of A, then A cannot be a 
	> subset of B.  skos:broaderTransitive needs to be defined as an 
	> irreflexive property.
	I think it's a little strong to say this is "nonsense". The 
	skos:broader relationship is *not* the same as subset. If B is a 
	subset of A, then A can certainly be a subset of B -- if it is, then 
	it's simply the case that the two sets are identical. However, 
	skos:broader is intended to represent something more general, and in 
	some ways less "formal" than subset (we already have rdfs:subClassOf 
	to represent the subclass relationship). So we should be careful not 
	to conflate the two.
	Having said that, it may be the case that it is appropriate to define
skos:broader as ireflexive, but that would be quite a strong 
	Sean Bechhofer
	School of Computer Science
	University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 15:33:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:48 UTC