RE : exact match

Hi Dan, Rob,

There was another use case, which was "re-structuring" of a concept scheme. Someone creates a scheme, but a weakly structured, or even flat one. And then someone else (or any agent/software with less authority than the concept scheme designer) creates additional hierarchical links between the concepts. 

In my own opinion, the "non-constraint" that Rob has spotted was actually more targetted at mapping relations that are not be exactMatch (e.g. broadMatch). Even if Dan's case makes sense to me!

Cheers,

Antoine

-------- Message d'origine--------
De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Dan Brickley
Date: mer. 01/10/2008 14:15
À: Rob Tice
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Objet : Re: exact match
 

Rob Tice wrote:
> Hi Dan
> 
> Thanks for the post and the use case, but is this not actually a 'work
> around' for the constraints of the SKOS semantic relationship model.
> 
> Wouldn't SKOS benefit from an actual equivalence relationship for those
> specific use cases when using labels for equivalence is not sufficient
> (apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere :)). Wouldn't this
> then be a more consistent model than exact match being utilised between
> concepts in the same scheme.

For strong equivalence, owl:sameAs between 'x', and 'y' is a way of 
saying that x and y are the self-same thing. I don't see a lot of living 
space between 'exact match' and total identity.

My point here was just to show there might be use cases for same-scheme 
exact match relations. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the 
existing relationships are enough...

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/