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

Re: References to "application profiles"

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:35:10 +0100
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Message-Id: <BFDA955E-CD32-48F4-9A8B-E75FC4BFD543@deri.org>
To: Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
On 28 Aug 2011, at 23:16, Tom Baker wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:34:58PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> 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])"
> 
> I like "represent alignments" better than "mapping equivalences"; actually, the
> previous version said "equivalencies" -- a word which AFAICT does not exist.

"Equivalences" is best avoided (IMO): many things which are aligned are not in fact equivalent.

-Jodi

> 
> By "elements", do you mean "properties" (e.g., owl:sameAs)?  Do we feel okay
> about calling owl:sameAs an "element" -- something one wouldn't say at a
> Semantic Web conference but is arguably more consistent with our use of
> "element set"?  If we decide against using "property" because we do not define
> it in the report as a synonym for "elements" (though perhaps it should be),
> then we would need to fix a reference to "standard library properties and
> vocabularies".
> 
>> 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...).
> 
> Good point!
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 07:35:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 August 2011 07:35:57 GMT