- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:29:15 -0800
- To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>,Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Are we still contemplating hierarchy to these relations? It would seem "broader" and "narrower" are relations subsumed by "related". Daniel At 02:01 PM 1/9/2008, Simon Spero wrote: >Is it better to label these relationships with the terms 'broader' >and 'narrower' whilst defining them with the semantics of 'related'? >Wouldn't it be better to use the standard labels to denote the >standard semantics, and use a special label, disjoint from broader, >for the non-hierarchical hierarchies? > >The SKOS Core Guide[1] originally aligned itself with Z39.19/BS8723; >I feel it's a mistake to abandon the standard semantics without also >abandoning the standard labels. The Library of >Congress adopted the BT/ NT labels for its >syndetic relationships in the LCSH, without fixing >the semantics; this has not proven helpful :-) > > >Broader/Narrower Relationships > >To assert that one concept is broader in meaning (i.e. more general) >than another, where the scope (meaning) of one falls completely within >the scope of the other, use the skos:broader property. To assert the >inverse, that one concept is narrower in meaning (i.e. more specific) >than another, use the skos:narrower property. >[...] >The properties skos:broader and skos:narrower are transitive properties. > >See also section on hierarchies in BS8723. > > [1, §#sechierarchy] > >Simon > >[1] Alistair Miles and Dan Brickley,SKOS Core Guide (November, 2005). >Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 22:29:26 UTC