Re: AW: AW: [SKOS] Transitive broader and ISSUE-56 (was The return of ISSUE-44 )

Hi Jon,

This comment of yours about 'core'seems to go in the direction Tom also 
supported [1]
Note that it is for me yet not obvious that this label should be more 
than cosmetic: I don't feel like creating several namespaces for SKOS

And for "core SKOS features" in the Primer, well I'd say it's a mistake 
of mine, at least for the moment.


> Hi Antoine,
> Personally I'm starting to find it useful to think of SKOS 'Core' as 
> primarily supporting interoperability between different types of KOS 
> in a minimal way, much like 'Simple' Dublin 'Core'. Maybe this has 
> been obvious to everyone else, but many of our discussions seem to 
> make it hard for me to keep in mind. As you point out so well, SKOS is 
> infinitely extensible to support the 'local' needs of any KOS without 
> losing it's 'core' support of interoperability. It seems to me that 
> it's well worth emphasizing the points you make about extensibility in 
> section 4.7 in other sections of the document wherever we've run up 
> against a clear yet unrequited need for extended semantics (like you 
> did in section 2.3 for skos:broader) as well as the introduction.
> Your use of the phrase "core SKOS features" and this discussion make 
> me regret somewhat the loss of the 'Core' part of SKOS Core.
> --Jon
> BTW the link to section 4.4 in section 4.7 actually links to section 2.3
> On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi Lars,
>>>>> We could invent two new properties skos:broaderTransitive (a
>>>>> subproperty of skos:broader)    and skos:narrowerTransitive (a
>>>>> subproperty of skos:narrower) which both are declared as transitive.
>>>>> Could this be a solution?
>>>> Well I did not mean to coin standard properties there, but I
>>>> think your
>>>> wish technically matches what I just wrote yesterday for the editor's
>>>> draft of the primer :-)
>>>> (in section 
>>>> 4.7, the
>>>> very last lines of the document)
>>> Nice. Just what I intended. Is there a chance those could make it into
>>> the standard?
>> I'm not sure this would be 100% safe, as multiple ways of 
>> specializing skos:broader can be thought of, cf ISSUE-56 [1]
>> And these mixes, leading to possibly confusing hierarchies for 
>> newcomers: consider the combination of "transitive"and "partitive" 
>> specializations. We can specialize skos.broader into 
>> skos:broaderTransitive, skos:broaderPartitive, 
>> skos:broaderTransitivePartitive. If we consider other axes of 
>> specialization (e.g. for "generic" and "instance" flavors of 
>> hierarchy) this would blur the picture even more...
>> On the other hand, given the number of reactions we had on this 
>> transitive aspect of broader, we might just decide to introduce only 
>> transitiveBroader, as an acknowledgement of the interest it gained.
>> Whatever, ISSUE-56 is still open, and comments are welcome!
>> Antoine

Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 16:24:52 UTC