- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:35:19 -0800
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Antoine, This example brings up my concern about SKOS focusing on satisfying the needs of one community so much that it will likely fail to meet the needs of the others (or at least, confuse other communities). Daniel Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>: > > Daniel, > > I understand your trouble: but again the standard reads: "Associative > Relationships: This relationship covers associations between terms that > are neither equivalent nor hierarchical," > Note that in SKOS we have the same problem: it is > skos:semanticRelation, and not skos:related is the general link that > subsumes skos:broader... > As soon as it matches usual practice (and it does!) I don't think this > is a real problem, though. > > Antoine >> Antoine, >> >> If I am understanding the semantics of what you are saying, the >> implication of your statement is that if two things "broader" or >> "narrower" then they are NOT "related". That makes no sense to me. >> >> Daniel >> >> Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>: >> >>> Well, that basically says, transposed in SKOS words, that related >>> covers everything that is not broader/narrower >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>>> It might be good to discuss this our tcon, as I don't understand >>>> your response to my question. >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> At 01:38 AM 1/10/2008, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi daniel, >>>>> >>>>> That would seem intuitive in some case, but it is not in many >>>>> KOS practices. >>>>> Consider the following quote from the NISO Z39.19 standard Simon >>>>> has just pointed us to (and I think there is the same in ISO >>>>> 2788) >>>>> >>>>>> Associative Relationships >>>>>> This relationship covers associations between terms that are >>>>>> neither equivalent nor hierarchical, >>>>> >>>>> Antoine >>>>> >>>>>> Are we still contemplating hierarchy to these relations? It >>>>>> would seem "broader" and "narrower" are relations subsumed by >>>>>> "related". >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> >>>>>> At 02:01 PM 1/9/2008, Simon Spero wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it better to label these relationships with the terms 'broader' >>>>>>> and 'narrower' whilst defining them with the semantics of 'related'? >>>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to use the standard labels to denote the >>>>>>> standard semantics, and use a special label, disjoint from broader, >>>>>>> for the non-hierarchical hierarchies? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SKOS Core Guide[1] originally aligned itself with Z39.19/BS8723; >>>>>>> I feel it's a mistake to abandon the standard semantics without also >>>>>>> abandoning the standard labels. The Library of Congress >>>>>>> adopted the BT/ NT labels for its syndetic relationships in >>>>>>> the LCSH, without fixing >>>>>>> the semantics; this has not proven helpful :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Broader/Narrower Relationships >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To assert that one concept is broader in meaning (i.e. more general) >>>>>>> than another, where the scope (meaning) of one falls completely within >>>>>>> the scope of the other, use the skos:broader property. To assert the >>>>>>> inverse, that one concept is narrower in meaning (i.e. more specific) >>>>>>> than another, use the skos:narrower property. >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> The properties skos:broader and skos:narrower are transitive >>>>>>> properties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See also section on hierarchies in BS8723. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1, §#sechierarchy] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] Alistair Miles and Dan Brickley,SKOS Core Guide (November, 2005). >>>>>>> Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 16:35:28 UTC