RE: [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics

Antoine,
 
I totally understand your point. This is the reason why I suggested on Monday to have a SKOS extended vocabulary that user could use if needed which would not create logical problems with the properties already proposed within the Primer [2].   
 
Quentin

 
________________________________

From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
Sent: Thu 17/01/2008 14:05
To: Reul, Q. H.
Cc: W3C SWD WG
Subject: Re: [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics



Hi Quentin
> Antoine,
> 
> I'm totally happy with the hints for specialization as defined in
> section 4.7 [2]. I would even advocate for these properties to be
> added as part of the skos properties as shown in [4].

I'm really afraid this would open a can of worms: if we introduce
broaderPartitive, how about things like broaderPartitiveTransitive, to
remain coherent with what we've done with skos:broader?
That would make 6 additional properties, plus the reciprocal ones
(narrower[X]), that is 12...

> However, I do disagree with part of the definition given in section
> 2.3 for broader and narrower.
> 
> I hope this clarifies my point.
It does! Thanks.

Antoine
> 
> Quentin
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> *Sent:* Wed 16/01/2008 13:27
> *To:* Reul, Q. H.
> *Cc:* W3C SWD WG
> *Subject:* Re: [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics
>
> Hi Quentin
>
> Just a doubt your comment raise: does your first comment's being based
> on the Primer means that you're not happy with the hints for
> specialization that are present in section 4.7 of [2]?
>
> Antoine
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The comments below are based on my review [1] of the SKOS primer [2],
> > but are quite relevant to this thread.
> >
> > 1. SKOS primer [2] describes that skos:broader and skos:narrower can be
> > used to create links "between one whole and its parts". This
> > representation would allow many different type of hierarchies to be
> > created without formally defining these differences. In same
> > applications, this would be totally acceptable. However, in some case
> > could raise interoperability issues. I like the ideas suggested in [3]
> > and [4], where sub-properties are created to represent different
> > aspects.
> >
> > 2. I would agree with Margherita [5] to use skos:hasBroader and
> > skos:hasNarrower to remove any confusion about the intended meaning of
> > the property for people that are not used to convention in thesaurus
> > circles (e.g. BS8723-2, para.8.3.1).
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0078.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
> > [3]
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504/#3.9
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions/spec/
> > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0075.html
> >
> > ******************************************
> > * Quentin H. Reul                        *
> > * PhD Research Student                   *
> > * Department of Computing Science        *
> > * University of Aberdeen, King's College *
> > * Room 238 in the Meston Building        *
> > * ABERDEEN AB24 3UE                      *
> > * Phone: +44 (0)1224 27 4485             *
> > * http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul
> <http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/%7Eqreul <http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul> >       *
> > ******************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > 
>