W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > May 2005

RE: exactMatch mapping property

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:27:26 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89DEE9D23@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Dragan Gasevic" <dgasevic@sfu.ca>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Dragan,

I thought about this a while ago - how to infer mappings in the opposite direction, given a mapping from a concept to an (AND/OR) combination of concepts.  It should be possible to define some rules that express this, but I can't think exactly what they should be right now.  It gets a little complicated because AND/OR combinations can have nested AND/OR combinations.  Definitely something to think about for the future :)

Cheers,

Al.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dragan Gasevic
> Sent: 11 May 2005 21:53
> To: Charles McCathieNevile; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: exactMatch mapping property
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to do is to define mappings between two 
> taxonomies to improve
> sreach for some web documents. Whan I have mappings between a 
> class (A) and
> a union of other classes ( B,C,D) it is OK i one direction, 
> i.e. when one
> searches for A. In that case I can get all instances 
> annotated with B, C,
> and D as well. However, when one serach for C wheather I can 
> get him any
> instances of A or not...
> 
> Dragan
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
> To: "Dragan Gasevic" <dgasevic@sfu.ca>; <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:47 PM
> Subject: Re: exactMatch mapping property
> 
> 
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:31:46 +0200, Dragan Gasevic <dgasevic@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Charles!
> > >
> > > I have one more doubt - If I the concept A that has 
> exactMatch with the
> > > union of the classes B, C, and D. I wonder how I can 
> define the oposit
> > > relation, let say, between B and A (or C and A, or D and 
> A). Maybe, I
> can
> > > say they have majorMatch, or I have to define a mapping 
> relation for
> each
> > > pair?
> >
> > You could describe the exact match as being the union. I 
> guess you could
> > also say that B,C,D are strict subset (confusingly, I think 
> that is like A
> > is subClass of B, of C, and of D...)
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > --
> > Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
> > charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org

> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 14:27:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT