- From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:03:46 +0100
- To: "'Antoine Isaac'" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "'SWD WG'" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac > Sent: 27 May 2008 17:09 > To: SWD WG > Subject: [SKOS] proposal for ISSUE-83 > SemanticsOfSchemeContainmentProperties > > > Dear all, > > I'd like to propose the following resolution to ISSUE-83 > SemanticsOfSchemeContainmentProperties [1] > > PROPOSAL: to add to the SKOS reference that the graph: > ex:cs skos:hasTopConcept ex:c. > entails the graph: > ex:c skos:inScheme ex:cs > But *not* to add extra semantics regarding the combination of > skos:hasTopConcept, skos:broader/skos:narrower and skos:inScheme > properties I support this. Cheers, Alistair. > > --- Explanation of the issue: > This issue was raised by a comment from Margherita saying that she was > using the combination of skos:hasTopConcept, skos:narrower to infer > scheme containment for concepts [2] > The initial (assumed) position is that if we have the following > statements > [ > ex:cs skos:hasTopConcept ex:c1 > ex:c1 skos:narrower ex:c2 > ] > then we can infer that both c1 and c2 belong to the concept scheme > ex:cs > > --- Motivation for resolution: > I think there in sense in having, for the above example, the inference > that ex:c1 belong to ex:cs. Not saying so would intuitively amount to > support cases where concept schemes have as top concepts concepts that > do not belong to them, which is weird. > But I'm sure we cannot allow the second entailment (ex:cs2 belong to > ex:cs). ex:c2 might not indeed belong to the scheme ex:cs, since we > have > resolved that skos:narrower and skos:broader can be asserted for > concepts that belong to different schemes (among others, as a side > effect of having skos:broadMatch a sub-property of skos:broader [3]) > > Note: there is a note in the current version of the Reference about > this > [4], but I think it could be made stronger: hence my proposing this > resolution > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/83 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html > [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/master.html#L4160 > [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/master.html#L2446
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 22:04:46 UTC