Re: ISSUE-146: Last Call Comment: broadMatch and skos:narrowMatch should be used only when there are no exact or close matches for the term elsewhere?

>> +1 for the first part. Disjointness of properties seems for the 
>> moment a bit difficult to state, given the meagre amount of expertise 
>> in that domain. Actually for some experiments we have thought about 
>> that, and came with no definitive conclusion.  It depends on what you 
>> want to do with the mappings, it seems. Some cases would accomodate 
>> very well non-disjoint properties, some will actually exploit the 
>> disjointess to make inferences wrt. to the quality of an alignment.
>> For the second part, I do not really understand the comment. Where 
>> have we stated that the semantic relationships are of secondary 
>> importance? I mean, having a significant part of our vocabulary (and 
>> our documents) about them acknowledges the relevance of these, 
>> doesn't it? And with respect to the use of semantic relationships I 
>> think the UCR documents provides enough evidence of how important 
>> they are for the scope of SKOS...
> I think that's more or less what Alistair is saying here isn't it?

Sorry, I think I have understood first Alistair's "We believe the SKOS 
Reference makes no judgment as to the relative importance of the 
different types of relationships." as not really saying that they were 
of equal importance. But of course now that you make me think about it 
twice, my imperfect English can see it :-). The fact is that it's more 
direct than what I would have dared writing myself.


Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 11:33:01 UTC