W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > December 2003

RE: mapping topicexchange to dmoz - testing the SKOS-Mapping vocab

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:24:54 +0100
To: "Steve Cayzer" <steve.cayzer@hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPMEFNELAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

The ordering does look like it could make life easier for app
implementations, but-

> I see where you are going with 'ordered' mappings, but I wonder if your
> solution isn't a little brittle.
> I mean, having defined 6 ordered mappings, what happens when you need
> another, numbered say 3.5?

I don't think that would be a problem, simply insert the new mapping into
the ordered list -the numbering isn't too important.
But I think there are a couple of related issues - firstly the loss of the
absolute relevance level (narrow-match, broad-match) might mean you end up
with really weak matches being given the same significance as strong ones.
This may not be an issue in practice - nearest is probably what you'd want
while searching.

The other potential issue is how to handle the matching up the taxo trees:

relevance
1. Arts/Movies/Titles/M/Matrix_Series/
2. Arts/Movies/Titles/M
3. Arts/Movies/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/
4. Arts/Movies/Genres
5. Arts/Movies/

> A way round this would be to allow relationships between mappings.
> So a mapping to Arts/Movies/Titles/M/Matrix_Series/ is 'better' than (more
> relevant than? more specific than?) a mapping to
> Arts/Movies/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/

Yep, that sounds like it could do the same job as the ordering in a
(probably) more versatile fashion.

Cheers,
Danny.
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 04:34:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:51 GMT