RE: Comments on SKOS namespace change question

> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Bechhofer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:48 AM
> To: Tim Berners-Lee
> Cc: SWD Working SWD
> Subject: Re: Comments on SKOS namespace change question
> 
> The issue here is that one of the changes is to the semantics of
> broader (and narrower). If we change the names of these properties,
> then I think a lot of the benefit of keeping the same namespace is
> lost. To return to my earlier characterisation of the issue [1], the
> two choices are:
> 
> [[
> *A*/ Keep the existing SKOS namespace
> 
> Pros:
> + Existing legacy data can continue to use vocabulary
> 
> Cons:
> - Semantics of the SKOS vocabulary change (e.g. broader),
> causing problems with legacy applications.

I just don't understand your Cons statement.  If you had kept the original semantics of skos:broader the same and introduced a new skos:broaderNonTransitive, exactly how would this cause problem with legacy data and applications?

Personally, I see another option:

1) keep the same namespace
2) make skos:broader and skos:narrower no longer infer any semantics about transitivity
3) make skos:broaderTransitive for transitive and a sub-property of skos:broader
4) make skos:broaderNonTransitive for non-transitive and a sub-property of skos:broader
5) make skos:narrowerTransitive for transitive and a sub-property of skos:narrower
6) make skos:narrowerNonTransitive for non-transitive and a sub-property of skos:narrower

Legacy data and applications could easily live with the fact that skos:broader and skos:narrower no longer infer transitivity, but just mean one concept is broader or narrower than another.


Andy.

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 12:59:17 UTC