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

On Jan 14, 2008 11:42 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>The Core guide reads

> 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
> <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#broader>| property

>The current Primer reads the same, as well as the Reference.
I> think this is rather compatible with ISO 2788 for instance.

It's 100% compatible with the standards- it's just  incompatible with
intransitive broader.   :)

Any intransitive broader must feature at least some cases of   partial
overlap.


Simon


On Jan 14, 2008 11:42 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> The Core guide reads
>
> > 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
> > <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#broader>| property
>
> The current Primer reads the same, as well as the Reference.
> I think this is rather compatible with ISO 2788 for instance.
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> > On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Can somebody explain to me what 'broader' and 'narrower', unqualified,
> > mean now?
> >
> > Given that the whole semantics of SKOS are now completely undefined,
> > and that the core guide is going to have to be completely rewritten,
> > what do these terms mean.
> >
> > We know that they can't be *any* kind of orderings.
> >
> > We know that they can't be  associative relationships, because
> > otherwise they'd just be called relationships.  We know that the
> > language used in the SKOS Core Guide has previously been  taken from
> > and aligned with Z39.19 et al, but that this is no longer acceptable.
> >
> > Just calling an associative relationship hierarchical does not make it
> > so.  The LC made tried that  twenty years ago.  Mary Dykstra(1988)
> > explained the problems  with this approach (if you haven't read this
> > article, it's very helpful background for this discussion).
> >
> > I I have no problem with SKOS being used to represent false claims;
> > I'm working with the LCSH, which, being of Congress, is riddled with
> > the things. Redefining an existing concept so as to make the false
> > claims become true brings in to question the whole exercise.  'Sorry
> > if I'm sounding like a broken record on this, but the broadening that
> > I'm most afraid of is  the whole thing going pear-shaped.
> >
> > If having a transitive broader is too problematic, can we at least
> > remove   unqualified broader and narrower completely?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > [Dykstra(1988)] Mary Dykstra. LC Subject Headings Disguised as a
> > Thesaurus. /Library Journal/, 113(4):p42 –, March 1988. ISSN 03630277.
> > URL http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
> > direct=true&db=aph&AN=6547855&site=ehost-live.
> >
> >
> > Making hierarchical relationships non hierarchical
>
>