Re: [SKOS] proposed resolution for Issue 4 - BroaderNarrowerSemantics

>
>> Second: just a bit of explanation why I wanted in the post-telecon 
>> discussion to defend the transitiveBroader as a subproperty and not 
>> as a super-property, in spite of what is in the part-of pattern of [1]
>> (I'll let you decide whether this nail is a matter of scientific 
>> interest or personal pride. But I had never misunderstood the pattern 
>> of [1] ;-)
>>
>> The point is that there is two possibilities for this transitivity 
>> effect:
>> 1. It is controlled by the one who publishes the data:
>> If transitiveBroader as a subproperty of broader, then it amounts for 
>> the one who uses it just creates a KOS that includes all the broader 
>> links that can be inferred from the hierarchy. Even if the consumer 
>> of the data can still retrieve the "direct" broader by some 
>> procedure, this is a situation where the consumer is strongly 
>> encouraged to adhere to the point of view the publisher adopts on the 
>> transitivity of "his" broader statements.
>>
>> 2. It is controlled by the one who consumes the data:
>> If transitiveBroader as a superproperty of broader, then the 
>> publisher has a more neutral stance with respect to the way the 
>> hierarchy will be accessed. The consumer can decide whether he wants 
>> to get the transitive closure or the direct broader, by querying for 
>> the corresponding statements.
>>
>> So the decision we are making here in favor of 1 is not neutral. But 
>> I won't argue against it, as it now seems to me to have strong 
>> application motivations.
>> (and the publisher really motivated for option 1 can still create his 
>> own transitive specialization of skos:broader...)
>
> There is also the consideration that Alistair raised during the 
> post-telecon discussion [1] of compatability with existing data. 
> Adopting the transitive subproperty means that we don't have a 
> standardised mechanism for retrieving transitive closure of broader. 
> Adopting the transitive superproperty means that we do.
>
> I accept that the decision we make here is not neutral, but I believe 
> that the pattern suggested by Guus fits much better with the pattern 
> of "assert direct, query over closure" that I described last night.

Certainly. The pattern 1 indeed would correspond to somthing like 
"assess direct or transitive, retrieve what was asserted", which is 
certainly different, and to a some extent, incompatible.

Antoine

>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 10:21:54 UTC