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: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:18:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5B6783.5080705@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 8/29/11 10:32 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> On 8/29/11 3:17 AM, 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.
>> 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".
> No, that's ok. We can replace "elements" with "properties".
> I mean, somewhere we write that "element sets" include classes and properties, but in that specific paragraph it won't hurt being specific (and avoid to force the reader to search in our definitions).
> If the W3C wiki was working right now, I'd log in and fix it...

done: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant_Technologies&diff=6013&oldid=6011


>>> 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 10:16:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 August 2011 10:16:56 GMT