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

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

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:55:31 +0100
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DADC5@hqgiex01.fao.org>

Hi Antoine,

I have seen this reply only now... I am checking up with all emails...

I wonder why we cannot apply also the mapping relations between concept
schemes? 

I went to the [3] page and I still think the proposal from Alasdair was more
correct for me.

In [3] I just notice this, but I do not think this is true (antough I may
need to think better to this):

  skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broadMatch.
  skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:narrowMatch.
  skos:broadMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:overlappingMatch.

Hope this helps
Margherita

-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
Sent: 29 November 2007 12:48
To: Alasdair Gray
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks



Hi Alasdair,

> My interpretation of the fact that there is development of a skos 
> mapping vocabulary, which has been further confirmed by Antoine's 
> email, is that the semantic relationships defined in the skos core [2] 
> are to be used only for relationships between concepts in the same 
> scheme.
>   

Actually no! This is loose wording from me. I should have emphasized 
that the standard semantic relationship (skos:broader etc) are 
*typically* intra-thesaurus, while the mapping links are *typically* 
inter-thesaurus. Actually, I do think we might need skos:broader to 
apply between concept from different schemes for very specific 
situations like concept scheme (controlled) extension.
But I think this is still not settled in the WG, and it was not my aim 
in [3] to make a decision about this. I'll try to remove the 
controversial text...

> 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?
>   

Indeed the very last part of [3] mentions this problem of mapping 
instances of skos:Concept to something else.
Side comment: I don't see why collection would become anonymous nodes: 
[4] still say that they are of type skos:Collection, for instance...

Cheers,

Antoine
>
>
> [1] http://www.ivoa.net/forum/semantics/0711/0617.htm
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102
>   
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo
[4] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference#head-1bd16ef1c7db5b34accddb
d17146f8e90c15f7f8
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 14:55:52 GMT

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