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

AW: Fwd: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)

From: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:53:42 +0100
Message-ID: <3A59BB6451C972429019B12996F92DAD02E4D833@frodo.zbw-nett.zbw-kiel.de>
To: "Stella Dextre Clarke" <stella@lukehouse.org>, "SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Cc: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Hello Stella,

a "null relationship" was indeed what I aimed at in the original post (obviously missing the prevalent english term - sorry for this).

True - since source and target vocabs change, this kind of information becomes more and more obsolete. But with limited resources, you can't re-check after each and every update. Therefore I think it could be helpful to have some (timestamped or versioned) state of this fragile knowledge.

Have a good weekend, too - Joachim 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Stella 
> Dextre Clarke
> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Januar 2011 17:53
> An: SKOS
> Cc: Antoine Isaac
> Betreff: Re: Fwd: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has 
> no matching entity in)
> 
> This sounds to me like either a red herring or a sledgehammer 
> to crack a nut. If I understand the original proposition 
> correctly, during a mapping exercise a housekeeping device is 
> needed to keep track of what concepts have been dealt with, 
> and which ones still await investigation. 
> In the old days I used to print out a simple list of all the 
> concepts to be mapped, work systematically through them and 
> tick them off in pencil when they were done (whether or not a 
> valid mapping turned out to be feasible).
> 
> Nowadays, there must be an easy and more reliable electronic 
> way of keeping track. But (in my view) it would be a mistake 
> to encode it as though it were a semantic property. It is 
> simply a housekeeping discipline which normally you would 
> hide rather than expose it to the world (but you could choose).
> 
> A "null relationship" is something different, much harder to 
> be sure of, and as Antoine points out, liable to prove 
> misleading as soon as the target vocabulary is updated.
> 
> Have a good weekend,
> Stella
> 
> --
> *****************************************************
> Stella Dextre Clarke
> Information Consultant
> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8RR, UK
> Tel: 01235-833-298
> Fax: 01235-863-298
> stella@lukehouse.org
> *****************************************************
> 
> 
> . On 28/01/2011 16:06, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> > Forwarding this interesting discussion to the SKOS list...
> > Starts at 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0113.html
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:     AW: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no 
> > matching entity in)
> > Date:     Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:44:30 +0100
> > From:     Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
> > To:     Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, 
> Emmanuelle Bermes 
> > <manue.fig@gmail.com>
> > CC:     Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld 
> > <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Emanuelle, hello Bernard,
> > Thanks for the clarifications about the different cases, 
> Bernard - my 
> > initial post subsumed "false positives" under #2, whereas 
> it is better 
> > and more exactly treated as the case Emanuelle deals with (#1).
> > I think Bernards proposition would nicely cover both cases, 
> and in my 
> > eyes it could fit well with the SKOS matching properties.
> > However, when vocabulary V2 in the statement
> > X skos-plus:noMatchIn V2
> > is enhanced, the statement may turn wrong.
> > (Maybe we here have a general mismatch of the Open World 
> Assumption in 
> > the Semantic Web and the closed world of authorities in the library 
> > world.)
> > Anyway, to deal with this - simply reporting the fact, no reasoning 
> > intended ... -, it could be helpful to minute the time when the 
> > statement was made, or the version of V2, if V2 is 
> versioned in some way.
> > Any ideas about this?
> > About the generalization of SKOS mapping properties, in 
> order to avoid 
> > false owl:sameAs: The latter is clearly a requirement, which we 
> > discussed in the Authority Cluster too. There we came up with the 
> > proposition to use umbel:isLike. I'm not sure if SKOS (plus) should 
> > extend the area where it deals with owl:Things in general - even 
> > though it's done a very good job with its labeling und annotation 
> > properties. I wonder what other people think about this.
> > Cheers, Joachim
> >
> >     
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> >     *Von:* Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> >     *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2011 20:15
> >     *An:* Emmanuelle Bermes
> >     *Cc:* Neubert Joachim; Antoine Isaac; public-xg-lld
> >     *Betreff:* Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no 
> > matching entity in)
> >
> >     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 
> > français dans le texte :)
> >
> >     Cheers
> >
> >     Bernard
> >
> >
> >
> >     2011/1/27 Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com 
> > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 
> > <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 
> > <mailto: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/heterogeneit
> y/alignment#Cell"/>
> > >> <rdfs:subClassOf>
> > >> <owl:Restriction>
> > >> <owl:cardinality
> > >> rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:cardinality>
> > >> <owl:onProperty
> > >> 
> > 
> rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneit
> y/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 
> <mailto: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> 
> > [mailto: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 <mailto: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 
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> > >> ----------------------------------------------------
> > >> Mondeca
> > >> 3, cité 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 
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
> > > Mondeca
> > > 3, cité 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 
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> >     ----------------------------------------------------
> >     Mondeca
> >     3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> >     Web: http://www.mondeca.com
> >     Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> >     ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 28 January 2011 18:57:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 January 2011 18:57:31 GMT