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: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:15:19 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=Dm7ZZ+AWe03iZmJ4UvY-E+PziMrp=U8Z8fou@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>
Cc: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
hello all

two points :

First the case made by Emmanuelle (#1) is not the same as the one made by
Joachim (#2)

#1 "Y (in vocabulary V2) is not exactMatch of X (in vocabulary V1)"
#2 "X (in vocabulary V1) has no match in vocabulary V2"

#1 is an assertion of exclusion of a false positive (e.g., false assumptions
based on homographs),
whereas #2 is the assertion of a global absence of match.

The logical relationship between the two is, for a given X

 #2  <=> forAll Y, #1

Second, using X owl:differentFrom Y to express #1 is a bit misleading.
It means that X is not the same as Y (in the very strong sense of
owl:sameAs)
That does not mean they could not be matched.

(X skos:exactMatch Y) and (X owl:differentFrom Y) are not necessarily
inconsistent triples.
In fact I would say that most of the times, concepts matched, even by
skos:exactMatch are not the same is the sense of OWL. Otherwise you would
declare owl:sameAs instead of skos:exactMatch :)

The more so with broadMatch, closeMatch and narrowMatch which somehow
implicitly entail that the concepts matched are indeed different (slightly
different, more generic, more specific)

#1 and #2 can be expressed using convoluted OWL constructions using
owl:hasValue restrictions and owl:Nothing ... expression of which is let to
the reader as exercise :)

It would be coool to have an extension of skos enabling direct such
declarations, such as

X   skos-plus:noMatchIn   V2 (Concept to ConceptScheme)
X   skos-plus:isNoMatchOf   Y (Concept to Concept)

An by the way, those properties could be part of a skos-plus extension
including generalization of skos mapping properties to resources which are
not skos:Concept, enabling alternatives to the proliferation of abusive
owl:sameAs  - as discussed with Ivan Herman last week at SemWebPro Paris ...
and tweeted by Emmanuelle
http://twitter.com/#!/figoblog/status/27400161554595840 en franšais dans le
texte :)

Cheers

Bernard



2011/1/27 Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>

> Joachim,
>
> Actually we identified a similar use case at BnF.
> Context is an automated matching or alignment between 2 datasets, that
> has to be repeated on a regular basis (when 1 dataset or the other is
> updated).
> A manual quality check process is set up to check the quality of the
> alignement process.
> A  human operator checks that 2 entities that could be automatically
> matched are actually different.
> He wants to record this fact so that in future matchings the manual
> work doesn't have to be done again.
>
> We plan to use owl:differentFrom to express that those 2 entities are
> different.
> It seems to me that this case relates to a relationship between two
> URIs in 2 different datasets, rather than a skos:note on one of the
> (un)matched concepts.
>
> Emmanuelle
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu> wrote:
> > Hi Bernard,
> >
> > thanks for your answer. I'm happy that I'm not the only one with a
> > requirement for this quite ephemeral feature ;)
> >
> > However, I'm not sure if your solution solves the problem I had in mind:
> My
> > idea was to express a workflow status. If I got it right, your class
> NoMatch
> > covers all entities without "Cells" (skos relationships) at a given point
> in
> > time.  But it does not say "for this entity, I have checked
> intellectually
> > that currently no such relationship can be established".
> >
> > That said, your approach seems quite useful to get hold of the NoMatch
> > entities  (and updates automatically if any mapping triple is inserted).
> I
> > have no experience with reification - is it well supported in your
> software
> > environment, and does the reification of all skos mapping triples perform
> > well with large vocabularies? It would be very interesting to hear more
> > about the "Terminology Alignment Environment", especially since we have
> > plans to create mappings between different vocabs in the field of
> economics.
> >
> > Cheers, Joachim
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2011 00:46
> > An: Antoine Isaac
> > Cc: Neubert Joachim; public-xg-lld
> > Betreff: Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching
> > entity in)
> >
> > Minor correction and complement of information.
> >
> > The quoted TAE project correct name is "Thesaurus Alignment Environment".
> > It's currently under development under the OPOCE umbrella, with the
> > technical collaboration of INRIA and Mondeca.
> > There is no public visibility of this project at this point of time, no
> > pointer, sorry ...
> >
> > 2011/1/21 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> -----UrsprŘngliche 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, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
> >> Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
> >> Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bernard Vatant
> > Senior Consultant
> > Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> > Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
> > Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Mondeca
> > 3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
> > Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
> > Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
>



-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mondeca
3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
----------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 19:44:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 January 2011 19:44:08 GMT