W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

ontology mapping etiquette (was What is the class of a Named Graph?)

From: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:36:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4B82DCC4.8040108@gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 02/22/2010 01:53 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Jiri,
> On 22 Feb 2010, at 10:51, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>> I wonder if we as a group of people
>> interested in Semantic Web could come up with etiquette for ontology
>> mapping.
> Interesting topic! My €0.02: If the other vocabulary is likely to be
> - more stable
> - more mature
> - more likely to be widely used
> - more likely to be around for a longer time
> then you should map your terms to it. If not, don't.
> So IMO the rdfg vocabulary should map to the SPARQL Service Description
> vocabulary as soon as it becomes REC, but SPARQL-SD should NOT map to rdfg.

Hi Richard, that also seems reasonable to me at first, but when thinking
about it more thoroughly, there is value in both ontologies doing the
mapping to the other. Danbri recently touched on this on IRC in relation
to reciprocal WebID owl:sameAs relations. What one source says in RDF is
what it considers true, which in our case would also mean the mapping
makes sense from the point of view of both ontologies if reciprocal. So
I would advocate doing reciprocal mappings, if they can agree on the
common mapping. This brings another issue...

Certain mapping statements make sense from PoV of one ontology, but not
the other. Should it be dropped and just have the both-sides-approved
mapping? I'm in favour of publishing it on just with the ontology for
which it makes sense. Dumping it would encourage
one-big-federated-web-ontology which is nice dream but not what I
believe is suitable for the real world and web (thanks to its
relativistic nature).

If we allow ourselves to go a bit further, I thought it would be great
if there was some community developed service which would in automated
fashion give advice for improvement and rate user submitted (better yet
WoD collected) ontologies judging their quality of design - most
importantly re-usability which basically means how is it aligned to
other similar ontologies. This would be probably very difficult, at
least because of varying opinions on this... I guess database community
has something to say about that.

There are more things to talk about regarding this, but this is what I
have in mind so far.


> Best,
> Richard
>> Best,
>> Jiri
>>> Hope that helps.
>>> thanks,
>>> .greg
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#id41794

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 19:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:03 UTC