ISSUE-163 draft response

Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Doug on [ISSUE-163], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Doug. (Doug if you're lurking on this list feel free to post your
thoughts at any time.)

Antoine

Dear Doug, thank you for your comment in [1]

> Note—not transitive vs. intransitive: 
> I'm not sure this says what is intended? There seem to be too many double
> negatives in sentence quoted below
>  "Not specifying skos:broader as transitive implies that no new skos:broader
> statement cannot be inferred between cats and animals by applying SKOS semantics. "

It should be indeed:
[
Not specifying skos:broader as transitive implies that no new 
skos:broader statement can be inferred between cats and animals by 
applying SKOS semantics.
]
The Primer will be changed accordingly. Thanks for spotting this! I hope 
you will find the new sentence more readable...

Best regards,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0062.html




> ISSUE-163: Note on transitivity (SKOS Primer)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/163
>
> Raised by: Antoine Isaac
> On product: SKOS
>
> Raised by Doug Tudhope in [1]
>
> possible typo in 2.3.1 Note—not transitive vs. intransitive: 
> I'm not sure this says what is intended? There seem to be too many double
> negatives in sentence quoted below
>  "Not specifying skos:broader as transitive implies that no new skos:broader
> statement cannot be inferred between cats and animals by applying SKOS semantics. "
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0062.html
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 4 October 2008 14:44:24 UTC