- From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:44:28 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: > I'm sorry but I don't have it... > I don't have ISO available right now, but I will check it. > As far as Z39.19 is concerned I cannot see a reference to something > like transitivity (but I might have overlooked, I just read quickly > the section on se;antic relations) > How about the following example: > mountains regions BTI Himalaya > Himalaya BTP Everest > > Can we naturaly have Everest as a narrower term of montains regions? > Does Z39.19 explicitly forbid that? I can't remember if Z39.19 explicitly prohibits this, but my personal belief is that it BTI and BTP are distinct relationships. The logical test for BT = BTG + BTP could be described as "is or is part of a "; Everest "is or is part of a " Mountain regions" undoubtedly holds Simon
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:44:43 UTC