Re: SKOS to RDFS/OWL ontology mapping

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> I think we need to stay practical here and focus on the use cases (or we'll be here until the end of existence :).

Oh yes, and have fun in the process :-D
Sorry for the distractions.

> I.e. blogger A says 'C skos:it X' and blogger B says 'D skos:it X' and they both live happily every after.

Great, that's certainly a good use case.

So do you want the above to imply C map:exactMatch D? I think clarifying 
the semantics of skos:it in such terms would be very helpful. Is that 
actually the semantics of map:exactMatch: "The concepts are 
conceptualizations of the same [class, or whatever]"???


> 
> eg2:People owl:sameAs eg:People.
> 
> ... and all the properties get jumbled up.  Two preferred labels, two definitions, lots of alternative labels, two dates of creation, two dates of last modification, and hard to find out which belongs to which etc.
> 

I'm not sure this is the whole story...? I think another problem is 
messing up the properties of the Class and the Concept...?

Also, if the two Concepts are really the same thing, adding the 
properties should not be problematic. But two dates of last 
modification... *what* has been modified? The concept or its SKOS 
metadata? I've seen uses of dcterms:modified that really refer to 
changes in the metadata record, not the resource.

I'm not sure, but does SKOS say something about the meaning of 
skos:Concept? If instances of that necessarily refer to one 
"representation" of a concept, or if they refer to the concept itself?
There would be important differences in the management of "last 
modified", i.e.
* Last modification of *concept*, or
* Last modification of *representation* of (an unspecified) concept

...



> That was the motivation behind a mapping vocabulary, so that you could say ...
> 
> eg2:People map:exactMatch eg:People.
> 
> ... which tells everyone they carry the same meaning, but prevents the nodes from getting merged in a graph.

This sounds to me like you don't really think that two taxonomies 
generally use the *same* concept, even though they refer to the same 
class of things. The concepts *are* different. Well, fine then, we 
should definitely not try to identify the Concept with the Class.



/Mikael


-- 
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose