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

Hello Neubert

However, when vocabulary V2 in the statement
>
>     X   skos-plus:noMatchIn   V2
> is enhanced, the statement may turn wrong.
>

No more no less than any other statement on the Semantic Web relying on any
external vocabulary : any kind of mapping, semantic extension, relying on an
external class as domain or range of a property etc.

ex1:Doc   dcterms:creator   v2:Victor_Hugo

... might be correct at assertion time, but if v2 changes the definition of
its Victor_Hugo URI, or deprecates it, this statement can turn out to be
wrong. So this is not really different.

@Emmanuelle do I get another Victor Hugo point for that one? (sorry, private
joke)

(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.)
>

Indeed.


> 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.
>

Sure. Semantic Web applications have to think about versioning carefully!
RDF, OWL, RDFS have no native provision for time stamping and versioning.
Because formal semantics, like mathematics, is simply ignorant of time :)


> Any ideas about this?
>

Got my 0.02 :)


>
> 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.
>

We need something wider in scope than SKOS, to which skos mappings
properties could be attached as specific restrictions to concepts.

Cheers

Bernard