Clarification of Task Relationship Representations

[vsoch]

I want to clarify the language that is used to describe relationships in the RDF. Specifically:

Task Parent and Child Relationships

• skos:examplecolor-word stroop task _is a narrower synonym_ of Stroop task/skos:example
• skos:exampleselective attention task _is a broader synonym_ of Stroop task/skos:example

(note this is not all of the examples, just a distinct subset)

If we look at the stroop task page, it looks like: narrower == is a child of (what the interface calls a progenitor, meaning someone cloned the task) broader == is a parent of? This would mean that the "Stroop test" was cloned from the "selective attention task" but if you see the link, I don't see Stroop task as a progenitor.

I would interpret these first two "is a (something) synonym" as "is a" relationships. But then when we see this:

• skos:examplepicture-word Stroop test _is descended from_ Stroop task/skos:example

is descended from == parents of. This is an assertion that can be made if I click + Add Phylogeny. But what is the difference between this and "is a broader synonym?" What seems to be happening (I think) is that if a task is cloned, this defines a relationship for both the parent and child. However if a manual annotation is made with + Add Phylogeny, the relationship is not defined for whatever second task is selected. I can't "undo" relationships that I describe in this way, so I'm hesitant to test it out.

Task "is part of" relationship?

I would have guessed that "collections" encompass the "is part of" relationship (e.g., if a task belongs to a collection we would say 'Task A is_part_of Collection B'" however I don't see any fields relevant to collections in the task RDF (the ids start with tco).

[vsoch]

ah, maybe I should use the owl file instead!