- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:58:27 +0100
- To: Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Dear Erik, thanks for your comments [1,ISSUE-148]: """ While it makes good sense to have an abstract base to handle unexpected cases, the draft acknowledges in Section 8.6.7. Reflexivity of skos:broader 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 way? 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. As discussed in the SKOS Primer [2], custom extensions may be defined. In this case, we have decided to leave this as an exercise for the community and propose to *close* this issue, making no change at this point. This does not, of course close the door on the possibility of standardised extensions in the future. Are you able to live with this?. Cheers, Sean Bechhofer Alistair Miles [ISSUE-148] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/148 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:59:51 UTC