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

Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:31:39 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=hTaK_1LZdVfp_fsHQFcTDt-xo0jA0m_8hZnPN@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hello all

In the Terminology Alignment Experiment, some applications indeed want to
have this absence of mapping made explicit.
We did it using a subclassing of alignment "Cell", which reifies a skos
mapping (allowing to put metadata on it) between entity1 in source
vocabulary and entity2 in the target vocabulary, in the following way.

  <owl:Class rdf:about="#NoMatch">
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">No Match</rdfs:label>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="
http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#Cell"/>
    <rdfs:subClassOf>
      <owl:Restriction>
        <owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:cardinality>
        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="
http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#entity2"/>
      </owl:Restriction>
    </rdfs:subClassOf>
  </owl:Class>

The entity1 in a "NoMatch" cell has no entity2 match whatsoever.

Maybe convoluted, but saying exactly waht it means.

Bernard



2011/1/20 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

> Hi Joachim,
>
> No, I've never seen this. It looks in fact a bit odd, as the aligned
> vocabularies may be extended one day so that a mapping can be found.
>
> Re. the representation, there must be ways to express this, using OWL class
> construction mechanisms (your instance of SWD would be in instance of the
> complement class to the class of reosurces that have a SKOS mapping property
> statement with a concept from STW). But I'd be tempted to wait for feedback
> to your questions on the other lists before trying it ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>  Hi,
>>
>> Maybe one of you - from the VocAlign Cluster, especially ;) - has dealt
>> with this?
>>
>> Any hints are appreciated -
>>
>> Cheers, Joachim
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] Im
>> Auftrag von Neubert Joachim
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2011 14:11
>> An: Semantic-web@w3.org
>> Betreff: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)
>>
>> When matching and mapping two datasets, it is common that - on both sides
>> - you find entities which don't have a matching entity on the other side.
>>
>> When that non-matching was verified intellectually, it could be valuable
>> to report this fact - especially to keep track of "false positives"
>> (e.g. matching labels, but different concepts in SKOS systems).
>> Basically, this states a relation between an entity - e.g., a skos:Concept
>> - and a set of entities - as defined e.g. by a skos:ConceptScheme or a
>> void:Dataset.
>>
>> Are you aware of any pattern to express this in RDF?
>>
>> I consider coining something like
>>
>>   ext:noMatchingEntity rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note .
>>
>> Since the date of the above mentioned verification should be reported, you
>> could end up along the lines the following example
>>
>>   <http://d-nb.info/gnd/4125416-8>  ext:noMatchingEntity
>>     [ rdf:value<http://zbw.eu/stw>  ;
>>       dcterms:modified "2010-01-25"^^xsd:date ] .
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Cheers, Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
----------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 23:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 January 2011 23:32:23 GMT