W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer - other points

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:49:50 +0000
To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090108174948.GA9962@skiathos>

> I suggest:
> 
>       <p>By convention, mapping properties are used to represent
>       links that have the same intended meaning as the "standard"
>       semantic properties, but with a different scope. One might
>       say that mapping relationships are less <em>inherent</em>
>       to the meaning of the concepts they involve. From the point
>       of view of the original designer of a mapped KOS, they might
>       even sometimes be wrong.</p>
>       
>       <p>Mapping properties are expected to be useful
>       in <em>specific</em> applications that use multiple,
>       conceptually overlapping KOSs.  By convention, mapping
>       relationships are expected to be asserted between concepts
>       that belong to different concept schemes.  However, the use of
>       mapping properties might also be appropriate in cases where
>       someone other than its owner needs to enrich the semantic
>       relationships within a particular concept scheme.</p>
>       
>       <p>The reader should be aware that according to the SKOS
>       data model, the mapping properties that "mirror" a given
>       semantic relation property are also sub-properties of it in
>       the RDFS sense. For instance, <code>skos:broadMatch</code> is a
>       sub-property of <code>skos:broader</code>.  Consequently, every
>       assertion of <code>skos:broadMatch</code> between two concepts
>       leads by inference to asserting a <code>skos:broader</code>
>       between these concepts.</p> <hr>
> 
> In other words:
> 
> -- Suggest dropping the final sentence in the last paragraph, 
>    which I understand but do not know why it needs to be said
>    (and therefore find confusing).  I do not at any rate think
>    it is needed here as a transition sentence.
> 
> -- Suggest dropping the one-sentence second paragraph, as the 
>    preceding sentence ("conceptually overlapping") already makes
>    the point.

I like Tom's wording here.

In fact, I would be tempted drop the first of these three paragraphs
altogether. If I had no prior knowledge of SKOS, I would find the
first two sentences ambiguous. The words "scope" and "inherent" are
particularly difficult here. And I'm not sure what value the third
sentence adds. I.e. one hopes that cases where the KOS designer and
the KOS mapper completely disagree about the nature of a mapping link
would be very rare. A brief, casual mention such as this may leave the
wrong impression, e.g. that these cases could be quite frequent.

Cheers,

Alistair

-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 17:50:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 January 2009 17:50:37 GMT