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?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SKOS
- Raised by:
- Alistair Miles
- Opened on:
- 2008-09-30
- Description:
Raised by Margie Hlava in [1]: """ This is excellent work and generally a map can be made from a ANSI/NISO or a BSI or even and ISO thesaurus or controlled vocabulary standard to SKOS. However there are still a few confusions which prevent one from insuring complete interoperability from one to another. This is represented by the section 10. Mapping Properties skos: broadMatch and skos:narrowMatch should be used only when there are no exact or close matches for the term elsewhere? A taxonomic view of a thesaurus depends on the broader term narrower term relationships. To SKOS this is not as important as the synonym (also known as equivalence) relationships. The parent child, genus species, broader narrower term designations allows browse-able or navigational search. This technique has taken much of the information industry by storm for the last couple of years. To allow this only as an after thought in SKOS is to marginalize an important area in findability. Otherwise, no comments. """ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0055.html
- Related emails:
- 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? (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-09-30)
- Re: SKOS Comment Broader term Narrower term relationships (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-30)
- 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? (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-22)
- 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? (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-22)
- proposal to resolve remaining no change and editorial comments (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-23)
- Re: proposal to resolve remaining no change and editorial comments (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-23)
- 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? (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-24)
- 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? (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-24)
- 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? (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-11-06)
- [mhlava@accessinn.com: 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?] (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-12-02)
Related notes:
2008-11-10: ACTION: Accept
2008-11-10: CHANGE-TYPE: None
2008-11-12: RESOLUTION: Questions of best practice such as this are deemed out of scope for the SKOS Reference. We hope that answers to questions such as this will emerge in the future within the community of practice, in response to implementation experience. We propose to make no change to the SKOS Reference, can you live with this? ... We believe the SKOS Reference makes no judgment as to the relative importance of the different types of relationship. Can you live with the document as-is?
2008-12-02: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept