- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:12 +0200
- To: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
- Cc: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Laurent LE MEUR <Laurent.LEMEUR@afp.com>, public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Simon Spero wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Alistair Miles > The semantics of the new "broader" are **clearly** *not* the same as BT, > or the correct broader. > > IF you want to keep the same namspace, rename the new > "broaderTransitive" relationship to "broader", and rename the new > "broader" relationship to "directllyAssertedBroader". > > The BT relationship is intrinsically hiearachical and thus transitive. While I've not dug deeply into recent WG discussions, I find myself drawn back to this position whenever I think about it. If something is broader than something else, then it is more broad. There's a built-in comparison that only makes sense with an ordering. There may be value in having a more complex property whose meaning is tangled up with direct assertions of broadness within some scheme or namespace. But that comes with its own slipperynesses in a world where these hierarchies can acquire additions over time. The original 'broader' has the virtue of being dependent only on the nature of the two topics being linked, rather than on what other topics are floating around nearby, and what links hold between them. If we want both, and we've had a name for one of them deployed already, I'd suggest sticking with the old name for the old flavour, and having a new name for the new one. cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 07:35:53 UTC