RE: [SKOS] TR : ISSUE 47 MappingProvenanceInformation

Thanks! The second solution seems good to me!
 
Regards
Margherita

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
 Sent: Tue 05/02/2008 19:51 
 To: Sini, Margherita (KCEW); SWD WG; SKOS 
 Cc: 
 Subject: [SKOS] TR : ISSUE 47 MappingProvenanceInformation
 
 

 Hi Margherita (I cc your mail to the SWD list),
 
 (And sorry Guus I promise this will be my only interfering with the
 issue you've just seized from me ;-)
 
 > -------- Message d'origine--------
 >
 > De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Sini, Margherita
(KCEW)
 > Date: mar. 05/02/2008 18:04
 > À: public-esw-thes@w3.org
 > Objet : ISSUE 47 MappingProvenanceInformation
 >
 >
 > ISSUE just opened after today conference.
 > I would mention is very important for us because based on different
 > needs we
 > may have different mappings.
 >
 
 That's indeed a very important motivation for such a requirement.
 
 >
 > I propose to assign a creator or owner to the mapping so to
idenfity the
 > provenance. and again by reusing if possible something already
 > existing e.g.
 > dc:author or dc:creator (forgot which one is).
 >
 >
 > Regards
 > Margherita
 
 
 The problem is that the issue may refer to indvidual "mapping
 statements", e.g. [ex1:cat skos:exactMatch ex2:chat].
 So applying your solution is technically feasible, but would require
RDF
 reification. We are here in a situation very similar to ISSUE-36
 regarding containment of semantic relationships in concept schemes.
 And since RDF reification is not popular, we cannot go for this
solution.
 
 Indeed, two solutions are possible:
 1. Creating a kind of "mapping scheme", that could be treated as an
RDF
 named graph. Knowing that a specific MappingScheme object has for
 instace ex:margherita as dc:creator and that it is the context in
which
 the mapping [ex1:cat skos:exactMatch ex2:chat] was asserted, then you
 could by using appropriate SPARQL queries retrieve your provenance
 information. This is very similar to the solution we accepted for
 ISSUE-36 [1]
 
 2. Creating a kind of "reification" for the mapping, similar to the
 pattern Alistair used for ISSUE-26 [2]
 Instead of [ex1:cat skos:exactMatch ex2:chat] (or complementary to
it)
 we would assert the following triple
 _:b1 rdf:type MappingRelation;
   skos:mappedConcept1 ex1:cat;
   skos:mappedConcept2 ex2:chat;
   skos:mappingRelationType skos:exactMatch;
   dc:creator ex:margherita.
 
 This is actually what is done in current ontology alignment
community,
 e.g. the format used for the OAEI evaluation campaigns [3, 4-p5],
which
 introduces mapping "cells". These cells are gathered in "alignments"
 using simple RDF statements. Conitnueing my fictional SKOS namespace
 (but everything can be represented using the vocabulary from [3])
 ex:myMappingScheme rdf:type skos:MappingScheme;
   skos:includesMapping _:b1.
 
 Notice that the two solutions have their strong and weak points:
 - 1 is closer to the way SKOS paradigmatic relationships are
expressed,
 but is less flexible in terms of representation: things will become
 messy if "mapping schemes" aggregate mappings from various origins
 - 2 is more powerful at representing provenance information (you can
 distinguish between the creator of the "mapping scheme" and the
creator
 of each mapping statement), but has clearly a technical flavor (far
from
 the way SKOS models its semantic relationships)
 
 Best,
 
 Antoine
 
 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L9287

 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2914

 [3] http://oaei.inrialpes.fr/2007/

 [4] http://gforge.inria.fr/docman/view.php/117/251/align.pdf

 
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 04:10:26 UTC