Re: [SKOS] The return of ISSUE-44 (was Re: TR : SKOS Reference Editor's Draft 23 December 2007)

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 16:26:04 UTC