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: 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
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DAE0D@hqgiex01.fao.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT