W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > June 2004

RE: SKOS & SIMILE, concepts, terms, URIs, mappings

From: Butler, Mark <mark-h.butler@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:04:29 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808ED23F4@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "(www-rdf-dspace@w3.org)" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Alistair

First better warn you unfortunately I'm not working on SIMILE, but I'll
explain my position here, as I did do a bit of the work on lexical mapping

> The SKOS-Mapping schema [1] was designed to take care of semantic
> But is there a requirement for expressing lexical mappings in RDF, and if
> so, how do we do it without getting rather confused?  

> The reason why I previously didn't think expressing lexical mappings in
> was really necessary was because they could be automatically discovered by
> computer process at any time.  But then I guess storing and publishing the
> results of that process could be useful, especially when operating on
> data sets. 

I think we do need to do this, in fact I think this is related to our
previous discussion on giving URIs to altLabels?

Automated discovery doesn't quite work in the way you describe, because the
computer will generate lexical mappings, but then anywhere between 10% and
50% of them are incorrect. So you need some way of capturing them, and
reviewing them by hand if necessary.

Does that seem sensible?

Dr Mark H. Butler
Research Scientist, HP Labs Bristol
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 13:05:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:03 UTC