- From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:08:32 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
>> - mapping should be kept separate from the skos version of >> the vocabularies > >Do you mean you think SKOS should have separate properties for links within a scheme (e.g. skos:broader) and links between different schemes (e.g. skos:broadMatch)? yes. >> - we should use the SKOS mapping relationships. > >Can you say why? Personally I think is good to have the name of relationships of intra-thes rt and inter-thes different because: - the meaning that users can give to these relationships may be different. E.g. in a thesaurus skos:broader can means "is-a", in another thesaurus can be a bit more generic such as "has more generic concept", but in the mapping I think the meaning should be clear and should be agreed to the team that developed the 2 thesauri. - having a specific name for mapping relationships will help to distinguish what is part of a thesaurus and what is part of a mapped thesaurus. - the relationships which can be done between 2 concepts in different thesauri may not be the same as the one done if the 2 concepts were in the SAME thesaurus. Example (invented one): rice@ag BT cereal@cat paddy@cat BT cereal@cat in the mapping we can say rice@ag exactMatch paddy@cat. But if I should have paddy in the agrovoc thesaurus (paddy@ag), I can have for example rice@ag USED FOR paddy@ag... or maybe somebody can set a different relationships... But not always exactMatch can be used as USE/USEDFOR within a thesaurus... Just some ideas, but I feel like I need more brainstorming... Regards Margherita -----Original Message----- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] Sent: 12 December 2007 20:47 To: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org Subject: RE: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks Hi Margherita, > - mapping should be kept separate from the skos version of > the vocabularies Do you mean you think SKOS should have separate properties for links within a scheme (e.g. skos:broader) and links between different schemes (e.g. skos:broadMatch)? > - we should use the SKOS mapping relationships. Can you say why? Thanks, Al. -- Alistair Miles Research Associate Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 14:08:58 UTC