ISSUE-150

Last Call Comment: Subsumption hierarchies

State:
POSTPONED
Product:
SKOS
Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
2008-10-01
Description:
Raised by Erik Hennum in [1]:

"""
We've had a need to distinguish subsumptive relations (for which we
currently use the SKOS broaderGeneric / narrowerGeneric extension) from
broader relations where the broader concept is not fully subsumptive.

For instance, there is consensus in our target audience that the concept of
Linux subsumes the concept of RedHat Linux.  By contrast, the High
Availability concept subsumes the overall purpose but not the operational
tasks associated with the Disaster Recovery concept.  (In passing,
subsumption relations seem much more common between proper-noun concepts
than between general concepts.)

The distinction is important because subsumption is much more reliable for
qualifying content during search applications (and can be treated as
strongly transitive).  Has the committee considered carrying forward this
experimental distinction from the previous version of SKOS as an optional
subproperty of broader / narrower?
"""

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-150: Last Call Comment: Subsumption 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. Re: ISSUE-150: Last Call Comment: Subsumption hierarchies (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-22)
  5. Re: ISSUE-150: Last Call Comment: Subsumption hierarchies (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-22)
  6. proposal to resolve remaining no change and editorial comments (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-23)
  7. Re: proposal to resolve remaining no change and editorial comments (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-23)
  8. ISSUE-150: Last Call Comment: Subsumption hierarchies (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-11-06)
  9. Fwd: ISSUE-151: Last Call Comment: skos:member definition (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-11-11)

Related notes:

2008-11-10: ACTION: Accept

2008-11-11: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-11-11: RESOLUTION: Yes, the working group has considered carrying forward the experimental extensions to skos:broader and skos:narrower. This was discussed as ISSUE-56. In May the WG resolved to postpone this issue [2], because we do not yet have sufficient information on how to embed the specialisations in the current SKOS model. The view was that further work, in particular on patterns and conventions for using SKOS and OWL in combination, was required before a standard set of extensions could be proposed. We encourage the development and publication of third-party extensions to the SKOS data model within the community of practice. The SKOS Reference (section 8.6.3) and the SKOS Primer (section 4.7) provide information and examples of how to do this.

2008-11-11: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept