W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > December 2007

RE: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:50:28 -0800
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20071201074627.04846340@smi.stanford.edu>
To: "Alasdair Gray" <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>,<public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>,<public-swd-wg@w3.org>

>
>A question I would like to raise is how can I specify a mapping between
>a collection in one vocabulary and a concept in another? It really is
>the collection as a whole that matches the concept. However, the
>collection becomes an anonymous node in the rdf. Is it the case that
>each member of the collection should be specified as a narrowMatch of
>the concept?

This brings up once again the discomfort I have with collections 
altogether and what is their equivalent in the ontology world. If we 
were talking about mapping ontologies, then things would be 
straightforward: your "collection" would be a parent class which 
subsumes the children (the items in the "collection"), and you'd map 
your concept to that parent class (where the semantics of the link 
from parents to children in the ontology is "contains" or some such).

Daniel

>Thanks,
>
>Alasdair
>
>
>[1] http://www.ivoa.net/forum/semantics/0711/0617.htm
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102
>
>
>Alasdair J G Gray
>Research Associate: Explicator Project
>http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk
>Computer Science, University of Glasgow
>0141 330 6292
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
>Sent: 27 November 2007 22:12
>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
>Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
>Subject: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>After a long period of silence, I have attached a new proposal [1] for a
>
>mapping vocabulary for SKOS to the page dedicated to ISSUE-39 [2]
>
>A bit of history. Some months ago, I proposed a first solution, trying
>to re-use the standard SKOS semantic relations (broader, narrower,
>related) to map concepts from different schemes [3]. This first
>proposal, submitted to the SKOS community list, was rejected (see
>discussion [4]).
>
>The new proposal hence follows an opposite approach. It is indeed more
>conservative, trying to consolidate the existing SKOS mapping vocabulary
>
>[5]. It therefore does not mix with the standard SKOS intra-scheme
>relations vocabulary.
>It also still delegates a lot of problems to other issues (like concept
>coordination [6]). But I hope it will be easier to make a decision that
>way.
>
>Comments are highly welcome! (I would like hereby to thank the SKOS
>community for all the relevant points that were made last time)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Antoine
>
>[1]
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/Proposal
>Two
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/
>[3]
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/Proposal
>One
>[4]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Jul/0009.html
>[5] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/
>[6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2007 19:02:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:58 GMT