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

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

From: Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:05:26 +0000
Message-ID: <4756CC46.3030905@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Alistair, All,

This may be covered elsewhere, but in case it isn't there is relevance 
to the current discussion.

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> (ISSUE-39A) Should "grouping" constructs for mapping be included, and if so, what are their semantics?
>
> (ISSUE-39B) Is it necessary to have parallel vocabulary (skos:broader // skos:broadMatch etc.)? If not, how do you differentiate between intra-scheme vs. inter-scheme semantic links?
>
> (ISSUE-39C) What's the difference between "related" and "overlapping"? Is there enough precedent to justify a new property for "overlapping"?
>
>   
I would say there is a fourth issue here which is how can collections be 
involved in mappings, both within a vocabulary and across vocabularies.

We have a use case for this with our astronomy vocabularies. (I'll try 
to send round details in the next couple of days.)

Cheers,

Alasdair
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:05:41 GMT

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