Re: ISSUE-149: Last Call Comment: Asymmetric associations

Hi,

I agree with the decison, on not introducing a subproperty of 
skos:related that is directional.
Yet I wonder whether the last part is captured: Erik mentions what seems 
to be links of type broader/narrower that are somehow not entail 
transitive hierarchical links, that is, skos:broaderTransitive 
statements. How such a thing would be possible, even if we accepted the 
requirement?

Antoine

> Here is a draft response to Erik on ISSUE-149, comments welcome.
>
> --- begin draft response ---
>
> Dear Erik, 
>
> Many thanks for your helpful comments. In response to your comment
> below:
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:17:15PM +0000, SWD Issue Tracker wrote:
>   
>> ISSUE-149: Last Call Comment: Asymmetric associations 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/149
>>
>> Raised by: Alistair Miles
>> On product: SKOS
>>
>> Raised by Erik Hennum in [1]:
>>
>> """
>> In our experience, while we've had no need for symmetric associations,
>> we've had considerable need for directional, non-hierarchical associations.
>> For instance, our target audience perceives a directional association
>> between a hardware platform and the operating systems that run on the
>> platform and again between an operating system and the software
>> applications that run on the operating system.
>>
>> In Section 8.6.3. Symmetry of skos:related, the draft makes a point of
>> providing examples of asymmetric subproperties of skos:related, suggesting
>> that our experience may not be unusual.
>>
>> Is this requirement sufficiently common that it makes sense to provide an
>> asymmetric subproperty of skos:related as part of the standard rather than
>> have many adopters solve the same problem in different ways?  Effectively,
>> this subproperty would be a broader / narrower relationships that does
>> _not_ entail or imply the weak transitive associations that construct the
>> hierarchy.
>> """
>>     
>
> While we are sympathetic to these requirements, at the current time we
> propose to postpone development of a standard solution and leave it
> for future working groups or for third party extensions developed
> within the community of practice. Both the SKOS Reference (section
> 8.6.3) and the SKOS Primer (section 4.7) currently provide examples of
> how to develop third party extensions to SKOS semantic relations. Can
> you live with this?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alistair
> Sean
>
>   
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
>>     
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2008 19:16:59 UTC