- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:21:49 +0100
- To: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- CC: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Daniel, I understand your trouble: but again the standard reads: "Associative Relationships: This relationship covers associations between terms that are neither equivalent nor hierarchical," Note that in SKOS we have the same problem: it is skos:semanticRelation, and not skos:related is the general link that subsumes skos:broader... As soon as it matches usual practice (and it does!) I don't think this is a real problem, though. Antoine > Antoine, > > If I am understanding the semantics of what you are saying, the > implication of your statement is that if two things "broader" or > "narrower" then they are NOT "related". That makes no sense to me. > > Daniel > > Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>: > >> Well, that basically says, transposed in SKOS words, that related >> covers everything that is not broader/narrower >> >> Antoine >> >>> It might be good to discuss this our tcon, as I don't understand >>> your response to my question. >>> Daniel >>> >>> At 01:38 AM 1/10/2008, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>> >>>> Hi daniel, >>>> >>>> That would seem intuitive in some case, but it is not in many KOS >>>> practices. >>>> Consider the following quote from the NISO Z39.19 standard Simon >>>> has just pointed us to (and I think there is the same in ISO 2788) >>>> >>>>> Associative Relationships >>>>> This relationship covers associations between terms that are >>>>> neither equivalent nor hierarchical, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>>> 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 Thursday, 10 January 2008 16:26:04 UTC