Issue 242: P150 subproperty of P127

Starting Date: 
2014-02-19
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2015-02-12
Background: 

Posted by Martin Scholz 19/02/2014 

Hi, 

shouldn't P150 "defines typical parts of" be subproperty of P127 "has broader term"? 

I think the scope notes support it. The SKOS extension vocabulary also models broaderPartitive as subproperty of broader [1]. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions/spec/2004-10-18.html#broaderPartitive 

 

Posted by Martin 19/02/2014 

Dear Martin, 

Thank you for your suggestion, but I do not think this is wise. E.g., car is not a more general term than a motor, particularly if you think of engines that can be placed in ships or in electric generators. What is the broader term of "screw" then? 
I want to say that parts may or may not be restricted in type to a particular type of whole, and can be of quite different nature and context. Think for instance of a relic container, which has part bones on saints. 

This interpretation goes back to ISO2788, but indeed gives wrong deductions. We need P127 to be restricted to "BTG", otherwise you cannot compute how P127 complements superclass hierarchies. Superproperties should only be introduced if there is a reasonable query which would subsume these senses 100%. 
Do you have an example of a query? 

 

 

Posted by Vladimir 21/02/2014 

The SKOS extension vocabulary also models broaderPartitive as subproperty of broaderhttp://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions/spec/2004-10-18.html#broaderPartitive 

This "extensions" vocabulary was only discussed but does not exist anymore. 

Similar properties are defined in the new ISO ontology: 
http://purl.org/iso25964/skos-thes# 
(broaderInstantive is renamed to iso:broaderInstantial) 

But they are not subprops of skos:broader. Probably because skos:broader feeds into skos:broaderTransitive, BUT Jutta Lindenthal and others have argued convincingly that you can consider transitive variabts of BG and BP but not BI, nor mixed paths of BG+BP. 
(Jutta's presentation with Cats and Felines). 

See discussions around this thread: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2013Nov/0026.html 
 

 

Posted by Martin Scholz 21/02/2014 

Hi Vladimir, 

Am 21.02.2014 15:30, schrieb Vladimir Alexiev: 

The SKOS extension vocabulary also models broaderPartitive as subproperty of broader 
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/extensions/spec/2004-10-18.html#broaderPartitive 

This "extensions" vocabulary was only discussed but does not exist anymore. 

I know this extension vocab is deprecated. However, the scope note of P150 says: 

"This is the sense of "broader term partitive (BTP)" as defined in ISO 2788 and ?broaderPartitive? in SKOS." 

So I thought the scope note refers to this vocab. 

Similar properties are defined in the new ISO ontology: http://purl.org/iso25964/skos-thes# 
(broaderInstantive is renamed to iso:broaderInstantial) 

Thanks for the hint, I didn't know that SKOS extension. This helps me understand ISO 25964 a lot, since, unfortunately, I currently don't have access to both ISO standards. 

I now see that I wrongly considered P127 to be equal to skos:broader although it is not! 

Maybe the scope notes of both P127 and P150 should get updated to reflect the latest developments (the more recent ISO 25965 isn't mentioned at all in the scope notes, only ISO 2788) and give a short explanation for those who don't have the standards at hand. Especially a clarification of the relation to skos:broader would be helpful. 

But they are not subprops of skos:broader. Probably because skos:broader feeds into skos:broaderTransitive, BUT 

In fact, the site says they are subprops of skos:broader: 

"- BTG/NTG - BTP/NTP - BTI/NTI : 
Currently these are only defined as direct (one-step) sub-properties of skos:broader / skos:narrower." 

But the point is that BTP is not a subproperty of BTG, so neither is P150 a subprop of P127. Rather both are subprops of skos:broader. 

Am I right with this interpretation?

 

 

Outcome: 

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig decided that this interpretation goes back to ISO2788, but indeed gives wrong deductions. We need P127 to be restricted to "BTG", otherwise you cannot compute how P127 complements superclass hierarchies. Typo in example of P150 removed.

The issue is closed

Oxford February 2015