- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:21:25 +0100
- To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Afterthought about naming: broaderTransitive => broaderAncestor narrowerTransitive => narrowerDescendant This assumes readers understand the intended difference (a la XPath) between parent/ancestor and child/descendant. Of course, these names need also to be evaluated in terms of the overall discussion about the broader/narrower names (I have to think every time I use them; for me the current meaning in counterintuitive). Guus PS I also suggest this naming discussion should not hold up publication of new WD. Guus Schreiber wrote: > > All, > > Based on the post-telecon discussion of today, I'm proposing the > resolution below. > > Guus > > Proposed RESOLUTION for Issue-44 BroiaderNarrowerSemantics > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/44 > > 1. Given that: > > - in the thesaurus world BT (BroaderTerm) is used to assert a concept > as the *direct* parent in of another concept in a BT/NT hierarchy, and > - we prefer the skos:broader to resemble as closely as possible the > intended meaning and/or accepted practice of using BT > > we RESOLVE that skos:broader is *not* a transitive property. > > 2. Given that: > > - in the thesaurus world there is clear need to be able to talk about > the transitive closure of the BT relation, and > - it would be confusing if SKOS (given its RDF/OWL baseline) would > *not* predefine such a transitive interpretation of BT, and > - for reasons of logical consistency (see note below) a transitive > version of BT > necessarily needs to be defined as a *superproperty* of its > direct-parent variant > we RESOLVE that the property skos:broaderTransitive is added to the > SKOS vocabulary, and that this new property is defined as a > owl:Transitive property and as a superproperty of skos:broader. > > 3. Identical resolutions hold for the inverse properties skos:narrower > and skos:narrowerTransitive. > > NOTE: The extension of a transitive variant B of a property A always > contains the same or more instances than the extension of property A. > Therefore, B cannot be defined as a subproperty of A (unless A and B > are the same, which is not what we intend when introducing B). So, > transitivity is *not* automatically inherited over the subproperty > relationship. For a description of a similar modeling pattern, see > the SWBPD note on representing simple part-whole relations [1]. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html > > -- VU University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 01:21:58 UTC