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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:51:55 +0100
Message-ID: <497F1F8B.9000608@few.vu.nl>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Dan Brickley a écrit :
> 
> 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.

Agreed. But there is messiness by essence [1] and messiness by accident. I think that for helping vocabulary holders (and designers of mappings!) to jump in the SKOS wagon, it is productive to allow them to distinguish between what defines the concepts and what is merely added to these concepts so as to make them operable in applications different from the ones initially thought for them.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:52:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:52:41 GMT