Re: exactMatch mapping property

Thanks, Miles! Yes, definitely something to thing about in the future :-)...

Best wishes,

Dragan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
To: "Dragan Gasevic" <dgasevic@sfu.ca>; "Charles McCathieNevile" 
<charles@sidar.org>; <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: exactMatch mapping property


> 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 16:58:11 UTC