ISSUE-148

Last Call Comment: Irreflexive and noncyclical hierarchies

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SKOS
Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
2008-10-01
Description:
Raised by Erik Hennum in [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 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?
"""

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-148: Last Call Comment: Irreflexive and noncyclical hierarchies (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-10-01)
  2. Re: SKOS comment (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-01)
  3. Re: SKOS comment (from ehennum@us.ibm.com on 2008-10-02)
  4. ISSUE-148 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-13)
  5. Re: ISSUE-148 draft response (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
  6. Real List of No Changes! (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
  7. Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-148] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-17)
  8. Fwd: SKOS comment [ISSUE-148] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-23)
  9. Re: ISSUE-147: Last Call Comment: Notations as plain literals (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-11-10)
  10. Re: ISSUE-147: Last Call Comment: Notations as plain literals (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-11-10)
  11. Re: ISSUE-147: Last Call Comment: Notations as plain literals (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-11-18)

Related notes:

2008-10-23: ACTION: Accept

2008-10-23: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-10-23: RESOLUTION: 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.

2008-10-23: COMMENTER_RESPONSE: Accept

2008-10-23: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept