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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:01:43 +0100
Message-ID: <49664D97.902@few.vu.nl>
To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>




>>
>>       <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. 

I can understand this. Would s/scope/application scope improve the situation? 

>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.

In fact I expect that these cases would be quite frequent. If a KOS designer agreed that a mapping link between two concepts in her KOS fit her intent when creating the KOS, she would have created it as a standard semantic relationship then, wouldn't she?

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 19:02:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 January 2009 19:02:23 GMT