RE: SKOS exactMatch Inclusion - a question concerning ISSUE75

Dear Johan,

Thank you very much for your explanation!

The reason I raise this question is because:
1. I thought the transitive feature of skos:broaderTransitive would make 
it different in thinking over (skos:exactMatch and skos:broadMatch 
entailment) and (skos:exactMatch and skos:broaderTransitive entailment) 
2. I consider the terminology mapping requirement would somehow work as an 
evidence that we need such entailment regarding to the 'no evidence yet' 
statement in the resolution.
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain 
axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them 

But you are right that the skos:exactMatch is not owl:sameAs, as SKOS 
wants to make least ontological commitment, it also make sense to not 
allow the entailment on {<B1> skos:exactMatch <A1>. <A1> 
skos:broaderTransitive <A2>}.

Kind regards,
Hong




From:   "Johan De Smedt" <johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com>
To:     Hong Sun/AXIFX/AGFA@AGFA, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc:     Giovanni Mels/AMCOH/AGFA@AGFA, Jos De Roo/AMDUS/AGFA@AGFA
Date:   10/02/2013 01:01 PM
Subject:        RE: SKOS exactMatch Inclusion - a question concerning 
ISSUE75



Dear Hong Sun,
 
Skos reference discusses property chains including skos:exatMatch in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/#L5675 
 
There is no entailment specified between
- any pair of skos:broadMatch, skos:exactMatch, skos:relatedMatch and 
skos:narrowMatch
- skos:exactMatch and skos:broaderTransitive (or skos:narrowTransitive)
- the skos matching/mapping properties in general and skos:exactMatch in 
particular are very useful because they do not imply owl:sameAs semantics.
  so if 2 concepts each from a different concept scheme have an 
exactMatch, they still need not be the same thing.
 
The entailment will not work by formal inference.
 
The suggested inferred relation may be a relevant one to check and then to 
assert by some other intelligence. 
You could indicate such interesting relationships by other properties than 
skos properties.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Johan De Smedt 
Chief Technology Officer
 
mail: johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com
mobile: +32 477 475934

 
From: Hong Sun [mailto:hong.sun@agfa.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 02 October, 2013 12:31
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Cc: Giovanni Mels; Jos De Roo
Subject: SKOS exactMatch Inclusion - a question concerning ISSUE75
 
Dear All, 

I am using SKOS for terminology mapping, as well as mapping validation. 
I have a question concerning exactMatch inclusions: 
Is it correct, or at least is it conventionally correct to have the 
entailment below? 

<A> skos:broaderTransitive <B> . 
<B> skos:exactMatch <C> . 
...entails: 
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <C>. 

It is similay to the question raised in ISSUE 75 (
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/75), 
where decisions are made that 
<A> skos:broadMatch <B> . 
<B> skos:exactMatch <C> . 
does not entail: 
<A> skos:broadMatch <C> . 

I can understand this, because skos:broadMatch itself is not transitive, 
<A> skos:broadMatch <B> . 
<B> skos:broadMatch <C> . 
also does not entail: 
<A> skos:broadMatch <C> . 

But meanwhile, with inference, 
{ <A> skos:broadMatch <B> } => { <A> skos:broaderTransitive <B> }. 
{ <B> skos:broadMatch <C> } => { <B> skos:broaderTransitive <C> }. 
it can be entailed: 
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <C> . 

Therefore, with the definition of skos:exactMatch 
'The property skos:exactMatch is used to link two concepts, indicating a 
high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used 
interchangeably across a wide range of information retrieval applications. 
skos:exactMatch is a transitive property.' 
I am wondering when both properties are transitive, like below 
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <B> . 
<B> skos:exactMatch <C> . 
can we entail ? 
<A> skos:broaderTransitive <C> . 


In addition, the resolution of ISSUE 75 is made as below, 
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain 
axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them 

A use case I encountered is that in terminology mapping, e.g. between 
concept scheme A and B 
suppose it exists: 
<A1> skos:broader <A2>. 
<B1> skos:exactMatch <A1>. 
it would be useful to entail the relation between <B1> and <A2>. 

How's your opinion on this? Thanks! 

Kind Regards,

Hong Sun | Agfa HealthCare
Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 8108