Re: [SKOS] "Mapping" vs "standard" relationships

On 27/1/09 15:20, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> To me the most important point in Tom's argument was the "not consider
> herself qualified". So this can be at first sight related to provenance.
> But fundamentally, it's a matter of authority, though maybe not in the
> usual Semantic Web sense [1]
> Actually I'd like to have SKOS send the message that the mapping links
> are just more dubious to re-use than the standard relationships. The
> latter are part of the *definition* of the concept and supposed to be
> usable by any application that will access the concept scheme, while the
> former are not.
> Just have a look at the results of automatic mapping tools. Or even what
> is produced humans trying to build a mapping themselves, or fixing such
> an automatic mapping. My experience is that this is hugely error-prone.
> And our fate is that many mappings will be produced by automatic tools
> or by non-expert people [2]
>
> So at some point I expect users will just want to know that something
> was said, which is reliable from a conceptual perspective. And that's
> essentially quite distinct from the problem of who said what. Antoine
> Isaac can publish nice SKOS conversion of existing validated schemes he
> got from his library, and crap mapping links he's just using for a demo.

There's plenty of terribly messy data in the library world. I'm wary of 
putting too much quality / authority / provenance work onto something as 
simple as a selection between two RDF properties.

cheers,

Dan