- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:24:50 -0800
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <l.svensson@d-nb.de>,"SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
So long as every relation has a formal English definition, I'm fine with that proposal. Daniel At 11:47 PM 1/13/2008, Svensson, Lars wrote: >In litteris suis de Samstag, 12. Januar 2008 14:58, >public-esw-thes-request@w3.org <>scripsit: > > > At 11:07 AM 1/10/2008, Bernard Vatant wrote: > >> OK Daniel, let me have another try if you don't mind :-) > >>> > >>> From my point of view, it does NOT make sense that skos:narrower > >>> and broader are not transitive. > >>> And if applications can go ahead and make them transitive by > >>> expanding how they wish, that violates the asserted SKOS semantics. > >>> Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, this sounds like a > >>> formula for chaos. > >I know we're currently finialising the spec, but anyhow: > >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? > >All the best, > >Lars >-- >Dr. Lars G. Svensson >Deutsche Nationalbibliothek >Informationstechnik >Adickesallee 1 >60322 Frankfurt >http://www.d-nb.de/
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 16:25:15 UTC