RE: Comment: ISSUE-70

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

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: on behalf of Sean Bechhofer 
 Sent: Tue 12/02/2008 15:40 
 To: Deridder, Jody L 
 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