W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Fwd: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)

From: Stella Dextre Clarke <stella@lukehouse.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:53:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4D42F487.2080900@lukehouse.org>
To: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
This sounds to me like either a red herring or a sledgehammer to crack a 
nut. If I understand the original proposition correctly, during a 
mapping exercise a housekeeping device is needed to keep track of what 
concepts have been dealt with, and which ones still await investigation. 
In the old days I used to print out a simple list of all the concepts to 
be mapped, work systematically through them and tick them off in pencil 
when they were done (whether or not a valid mapping turned out to be 
feasible).

Nowadays, there must be an easy and more reliable electronic way of 
keeping track. But (in my view) it would be a mistake to encode it as 
though it were a semantic property. It is simply a housekeeping 
discipline which normally you would hide rather than expose it to the 
world (but you could choose).

A "null relationship" is something different, much harder to be sure of, 
and as Antoine points out, liable to prove misleading as soon as the 
target vocabulary is updated.

Have a good weekend,
Stella

-- 
*****************************************************
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
stella@lukehouse.org
*****************************************************


. On 28/01/2011 16:06, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Forwarding this interesting discussion to the SKOS list...
> Starts at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0113.html
>
> Antoine
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     AW: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no 
> matching entity in)
> Date:     Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:44:30 +0100
> From:     Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
> To:     Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Emmanuelle Bermes 
> <manue.fig@gmail.com>
> CC:     Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld 
> <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
>
>
>
> Hello Emanuelle, hello Bernard,
> Thanks for the clarifications about the different cases, Bernard - my 
> initial post subsumed "false positives" under #2, whereas it is better 
> and more exactly treated as the case Emanuelle deals with (#1).
> I think Bernards proposition would nicely cover both cases, and in my 
> eyes it could fit well with the SKOS matching properties.
> However, when vocabulary V2 in the statement
> X skos-plus:noMatchIn V2
> is enhanced, the statement may turn wrong.
> (Maybe we here have a general mismatch of the Open World Assumption in 
> the Semantic Web and the closed world of authorities in the library 
> world.)
> Anyway, to deal with this - simply reporting the fact, no reasoning 
> intended ... -, it could be helpful to minute the time when the 
> statement was made, or the version of V2, if V2 is versioned in some way.
> Any ideas about this?
> About the generalization of SKOS mapping properties, in order to avoid 
> false owl:sameAs: The latter is clearly a requirement, which we 
> discussed in the Authority Cluster too. There we came up with the 
> proposition to use umbel:isLike. I'm not sure if SKOS (plus) should 
> extend the area where it deals with owl:Things in general - even 
> though it's done a very good job with its labeling und annotation 
> properties. I wonder what other people think about this.
> Cheers, Joachim
>
>     
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>     *Von:* Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
>     *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2011 20:15
>     *An:* Emmanuelle Bermes
>     *Cc:* Neubert Joachim; Antoine Isaac; public-xg-lld
>     *Betreff:* Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no 
> matching entity in)
>
>     hello all
>
>     two points :
>
>     First the case made by Emmanuelle (#1) is not the same as the one 
> made by Joachim (#2)
>
>     #1 "Y (in vocabulary V2) is not exactMatch of X (in vocabulary V1)"
>     #2 "X (in vocabulary V1) has no match in vocabulary V2"
>
>     #1 is an assertion of exclusion of a false positive (e.g., false 
> assumptions based on homographs),
>     whereas #2 is the assertion of a global absence of match.
>
>     The logical relationship between the two is, for a given X
>
>     #2 <=> forAll Y, #1
>
>     Second, using X owl:differentFrom Y to express #1 is a bit 
> misleading.
>     It means that X is not the same as Y (in the very strong sense of 
> owl:sameAs)
>     That does not mean they could not be matched.
>
>     (X skos:exactMatch Y) and (X owl:differentFrom Y) are not 
> necessarily inconsistent triples.
>     In fact I would say that most of the times, concepts matched, even 
> by skos:exactMatch are not the same is the sense of OWL. Otherwise you 
> would declare owl:sameAs instead of skos:exactMatch :)
>
>     The more so with broadMatch, closeMatch and narrowMatch which 
> somehow implicitly entail that the concepts matched are indeed 
> different (slightly different, more generic, more specific)
>
>     #1 and #2 can be expressed using convoluted OWL constructions 
> using owl:hasValue restrictions and owl:Nothing ... expression of 
> which is let to the reader as exercise :)
>
>     It would be coool to have an extension of skos enabling direct 
> such declarations, such as
>
>     X skos-plus:noMatchIn V2 (Concept to ConceptScheme)
>     X skos-plus:isNoMatchOf Y (Concept to Concept)
>
>     An by the way, those properties could be part of a skos-plus 
> extension including generalization of skos mapping properties to 
> resources which are not skos:Concept, enabling alternatives to the 
> proliferation of abusive owl:sameAs - as discussed with Ivan Herman 
> last week at SemWebPro Paris ... and tweeted by Emmanuelle
>     http://twitter.com/#!/figoblog/status/27400161554595840 en 
> franšais dans le texte :)
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Bernard
>
>
>
>     2011/1/27 Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com 
> <mailto:manue.fig@gmail.com>>
>
>         Joachim,
>
>         Actually we identified a similar use case at BnF.
>         Context is an automated matching or alignment between 2 
> datasets, that
>         has to be repeated on a regular basis (when 1 dataset or the 
> other is
>         updated).
>         A manual quality check process is set up to check the quality 
> of the
>         alignement process.
>         A human operator checks that 2 entities that could be 
> automatically
>         matched are actually different.
>         He wants to record this fact so that in future matchings the 
> manual
>         work doesn't have to be done again.
>
>         We plan to use owl:differentFrom to express that those 2 
> entities are different.
>         It seems to me that this case relates to a relationship 
> between two
>         URIs in 2 different datasets, rather than a skos:note on one 
> of the
>         (un)matched concepts.
>
>         Emmanuelle
>
>         On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Neubert Joachim 
> <J.Neubert@zbw.eu <mailto:J.Neubert@zbw.eu>> wrote:
> > Hi Bernard,
> >
> > thanks for your answer. I'm happy that I'm not the only one with a
> > requirement for this quite ephemeral feature ;)
> >
> > However, I'm not sure if your solution solves the problem I had in 
> mind: My
> > idea was to express a workflow status. If I got it right, your class 
> NoMatch
> > covers all entities without "Cells" (skos relationships) at a given 
> point in
> > time. But it does not say "for this entity, I have checked 
> intellectually
> > that currently no such relationship can be established".
> >
> > That said, your approach seems quite useful to get hold of the NoMatch
> > entities (and updates automatically if any mapping triple is 
> inserted). I
> > have no experience with reification - is it well supported in your 
> software
> > environment, and does the reification of all skos mapping triples 
> perform
> > well with large vocabularies? It would be very interesting to hear more
> > about the "Terminology Alignment Environment", especially since we have
> > plans to create mappings between different vocabs in the field of 
> economics.
> >
> > Cheers, Joachim
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com 
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2011 00:46
> > An: Antoine Isaac
> > Cc: Neubert Joachim; public-xg-lld
> > Betreff: Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching
> > entity in)
> >
> > Minor correction and complement of information.
> >
> > The quoted TAE project correct name is "Thesaurus Alignment 
> Environment".
> > It's currently under development under the OPOCE umbrella, with the
> > technical collaboration of INRIA and Mondeca.
> > There is no public visibility of this project at this point of time, no
> > pointer, sorry ...
> >
> > 2011/1/21 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com 
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>>
> >>
> >> Hello all
> >>
> >> In the Terminology Alignment Experiment, some applications indeed 
> want to
> >> have this absence of mapping made explicit.
> >> We did it using a subclassing of alignment "Cell", which reifies a 
> skos
> >> mapping (allowing to put metadata on it) between entity1 in source
> >> vocabulary and entity2 in the target vocabulary, in the following way.
> >>
> >> <owl:Class rdf:about="#NoMatch">
> >> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">No Match</rdfs:label>
> >> <rdfs:subClassOf
> >> 
> rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#Cell"/>
> >> <rdfs:subClassOf>
> >> <owl:Restriction>
> >> <owl:cardinality
> >> rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:cardinality>
> >> <owl:onProperty
> >> 
> rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#entity2"/>
> >> </owl:Restriction>
> >> </rdfs:subClassOf>
> >> </owl:Class>
> >>
> >> The entity1 in a "NoMatch" cell has no entity2 match whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Maybe convoluted, but saying exactly waht it means.
> >>
> >> Bernard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2011/1/20 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Joachim,
> >>>
> >>> No, I've never seen this. It looks in fact a bit odd, as the aligned
> >>> vocabularies may be extended one day so that a mapping can be found.
> >>>
> >>> Re. the representation, there must be ways to express this, using OWL
> >>> class construction mechanisms (your instance of SWD would be in 
> instance of
> >>> the complement class to the class of reosurces that have a SKOS 
> mapping
> >>> property statement with a concept from STW). But I'd be tempted to 
> wait for
> >>> feedback to your questions on the other lists before trying it ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Antoine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe one of you - from the VocAlign Cluster, especially ;) - has 
> dealt
> >>>> with this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Any hints are appreciated -
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers, Joachim
> >>>>
> >>>> -----UrsprŘngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org 
> <mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org> 
> [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org 
> <mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org>] Im
> >>>> Auftrag von Neubert Joachim
> >>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2011 14:11
> >>>> An: Semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:Semantic-web@w3.org>
> >>>> Betreff: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching 
> entity
> >>>> in)
> >>>>
> >>>> When matching and mapping two datasets, it is common that - on both
> >>>> sides - you find entities which don't have a matching entity on 
> the other
> >>>> side.
> >>>>
> >>>> When that non-matching was verified intellectually, it could be 
> valuable
> >>>> to report this fact - especially to keep track of "false positives"
> >>>> (e.g. matching labels, but different concepts in SKOS systems).
> >>>> Basically, this states a relation between an entity - e.g., a
> >>>> skos:Concept - and a set of entities - as defined e.g. by a
> >>>> skos:ConceptScheme or a void:Dataset.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you aware of any pattern to express this in RDF?
> >>>>
> >>>> I consider coining something like
> >>>>
> >>>> ext:noMatchingEntity rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note .
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the date of the above mentioned verification should be 
> reported,
> >>>> you could end up along the lines the following example
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://d-nb.info/gnd/4125416-8> ext:noMatchingEntity
> >>>> [ rdf:value<http://zbw.eu/stw> ;
> >>>> dcterms:modified "2010-01-25"^^xsd:date ] .
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers, Joachim
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bernard Vatant
> >> Senior Consultant
> >> Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> >> Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459
> >> Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >> Mondeca
> >> 3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
> >> Web: http://www.mondeca.com
> >> Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bernard Vatant
> > Senior Consultant
> > Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> > Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459
> > Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Mondeca
> > 3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
> > Web: http://www.mondeca.com
> > Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Bernard Vatant
>     Senior Consultant
>     Vocabulary & Data Engineering
>     Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459
>     Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
>     ----------------------------------------------------
>     Mondeca
>     3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
>     Web: http://www.mondeca.com
>     Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com
>     ----------------------------------------------------
>
Received on Friday, 28 January 2011 16:54:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:14 UTC