W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2011

Re: References to "application profiles"

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:34:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5AB482.5090807@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Hi Tom,

Only on the alignment section:


> In the end, I pretty much stuck to the changes I proposed on Thursday,
> with some additional wordsmithing:
>
> -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=6007&oldid=6006
>     -- Reference to "application profiles" here left untouched (looks fine, Antoine!)
>     -- Clarified wording in various ways (see diff).


This looks like wordsmithing. I don't feel like there is much difference in the message, it just looks clearer. Thanks!


>     -- In addition to LLD XG and LOD-LAM, added DCMI and FOAF Project (citing their joint statement)
>        to the list of advocates for alignments among element sets.


Yes, that's good.

  
>     Paragraph now reads:
>
[...]
> In the latter, I share Jodi's concern about possible confusion between
> "alignment" and "ontology mapping", though not enough to propose it be
> re-worded on this point.  However, the detail about versions of OWL and the
> inadequacies of RDFS seems a bit excessive here, so I have proposed a
> simplification:
>
>          The current version of [http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ OWL Web Ontology
>          Language], which provides methods for mapping equivalences across
>          vocabularies
>          ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping
>          ontology mapping]), allows experts to describe their domain using community
>          idioms while remaining interoperable with related or more common idioms.
>


Fair enough.
Note that the confusion between "alignment" and "ontology mapping" is quite understandable: as soon as you include in it similarity between individuals (owl:sameAs or softer), then "ontology mapping" may cover the entire realm of semantic alignment, in the RDF(S)/OWL world.
Note that as an ontology matching researcher, I am using the terminology from that area:
- matching = the process of establishing connections (manually or using an automatized technique)
- mapping = an individual correspondence (e.g., between class A and class B)
- alignment = a set of mappings between two datasets/ontologies

So I'd propose to replace
"which provides methods for mapping equivalences across vocabularies ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping ontology mapping])"
by
"which provides elements to represent alignments across vocabularies ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping ontology mappings])"

But that's a mere suggestion. Having been confused by all that years ago (and still being quite a bit) I understand that you may be unconvinced. Even though one big plus of my wording is that it's more compatible with the section in the OWL specs, which includes "different from" links -- thus quite far from "equivalences" (an alignment can indeed also include mappings that denote dissimilarity...).

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 21:33:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 28 August 2011 21:33:05 GMT