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

Re: [SKOS] RE : Skos mapping issues

From: <jlacasta@unizar.es>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:11:49 +0200
Message-ID: <20070723221149.ue9eocax2mcko4k4@webmail.unizar.es>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org


> >
> > Respect to the compositions of mappings through "and", "or" and "not"
> > relationships I think that to be able to create complex compositions as
> > (A and B and (C or (D and E))), it would be needed a specialization of skos
> > concept (called for example conceptCollection) to group all the composed
> > concepts and the type of composition.
> >
> > I see that there are some similarities in the "and" relationship respect to
the
> > pre-coordination of labels in a thesaurus, and also
> > respect to the composition in USE relationship to refer from a complex label
to
> > two simpler ones. However, I think they are
> > some semantic differences between the "and" and the coordination making them
not
> > completely interchangeable.
>
>
> This was the point in [3] to treat this "and" problem in the context of a
different coordination problem which is on the SWD agenda [4]
> Your point about "and" and pre-coordination is valid. There are case of
complex mappings with conjunctions that could well correspond to
post-coordination cases, and [4] is too narrow for this.
> So we should re-introduce post-coordination in the loop by means of some
specific "and". Something which semantics should be roughly
> if x match (y andpostcoord z) then (if doc skos:subject x then doc
skos:subject y and doc skos:subject z )
>

I agree with this. However, I think that pre and post-coordination are focused
in the labels more than in the concepts (labels of two or more concepts are
composed to construct a multi word label that represents a new concept. The use
of "and" is completely focused in concepts (two composed concepts by an "and"
have an meaning equivalent to other one). It does not mater the labels of each
concept.

Respects to the other types of composition "or" and "not". They are commented in
the different thesaurus standards but I am not sure if they are really used in
the "real word" to define mappings. Especially complex to use I find the "not"
given that it only has sense in combination with "and" or "or". Do you know of
a real mapping in which this types of compositions are used?.

> I think it is still a good idea to separate it from pre-coordination: in my
current view (and I learned a lot reading the wise posts of this list, and
could continue learning)
> A mapping to a pre-coordination is a mapping to a single, even if complex,
subject: the semantics would not imply infering new skos:subject triples. In
this case the problem is delegated to [4]
> A mapping to post-coordination would involve several subjects, as mentioned in
the previous rule
> Would such an approach alleviate your concerns?

I see pre-coordination like adding a property to the concept, instead of
generating a new combined meaning (from two different concepts). So, I agree
with treating in a different way.

>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/
> > [2] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/press/dc2006/mapping.html
> > [3]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalOne
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/47
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
>

Best regards,
Javier
Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 20:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:09 UTC