ISSUE-148 draft response


Here's an updated draft response to Erik on [ISSUE-148]. 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  
Erik. (Erik if you're lurking on this list feel free to post your  
thoughts at any time.)


Dear Erik,

thanks for your comments [1]:

While it makes good sense to have an abstract base to handle unexpected
cases, the draft acknowledges in Section 8.6.7. Reflexivity of  
and Section 8.6.8. Cycles in the Hierarchical Relation (Reflexivity of
skos:broaderTransitive) that many applications expect hierarchical
relationships to be irreflexive and noncyclical.

Given that this requirement will be quite common, is it appropriate to
leave it as an exercise for each application to solve in a different  
Or would it be better to define subproperties with these constraints so
this common requirement can be addressed by common SKOS infrastructure?


We appreciate and understand your comments relating to the provision  
of standardised relationships. With SKOS (as with any vocabulary) the  
WG had to make decisions as to "when to stop" in terms of providing  
standardised vocabulary. In this case, we have decided to leave this  
as an exercise for the reader and propose to make no change at this  

This does not, of course close the door on the possibility of  
standardised extensions in the future.

Are you able to live with this?.


	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester

Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 16:07:58 UTC