W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-dspace@w3.org > June 2004

RE: SKOS & SIMILE, concepts, terms, URIs, mappings

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:34:21 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C049442ED@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: "'Butler, Mark'" <mark-h.butler@hp.com>, "(www-rdf-dspace@w3.org)" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Mark, 

> Here is the use case we had in SIMILE:
> I have some Artstor data that uses the term "cadavers" (which 
> is a preferred
> term in the Artstor data), and I want to map onto the LOC TGM 
> thesaurus. In
> LOC TGM, cadavers is an alternative term for both "dead 
> animals" and "dead
> persons". Therefore, my guess is LOC decided that the term 
> "cadavers" was
> ambiguous, so they decided to encourage cataloguers to use 
> the two less
> ambiguous terms. However here the concept corresponding to cadaver is
> actually the union of the concepts that have "dead animals" and "dead
> persons" as their primary terms. 

So taking this as an example, using the following hypothetical RDF
descriptions of the concepts involved ...

  <skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="a">
    <skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="Artstor"/>
  <skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="b">
    <skos:prefLabel>Dead animals</skos:prefLabel>
    <skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="LOCTGM"/>
  <skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="c">
    <skos:prefLabel>Dead persons</skos:prefLabel>
    <skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="LOCTGM"/>

... using the most recent version of the SKOS-Mapping schema [1][2] the
Artstor -> LOCTGM mapping would be expressed as ...

  <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="a">
        <skos-map:memberList rdf:parseType="Collection">
          <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="b"/>
          <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="c"/>

... and the LOCTGM -> Artstor mapping would be expressed as ...

  <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="b">
    <skos-map:broadMatch rdf:nodeID="a"/>
  <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="c">
    <skos-map:broadMatch rdf:nodeID="a"/>

This is of course a semantic mapping, and needs a person to identify it.  

Some sort of mapping tool is what I had in mind as a UI, to help a user
define semantic mappings (possibly suggested by lexical mappings).

As a totally hypothetical example, I was thinking that lexical mappings
could be expressed as in e.g. ....   

    <test:source rdf:nodeID="b"/>
    <test:target rdf:nodeID="a"/>

I would love to see another round of development on the SKOS-Mapping schema
(I think it needs it), with some proper test cases to try it out.  I don't
think we have this effort left in SWAD-E though, something to think of for
the future :).



[1] http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/2003/11/21-skos-mapping
[2] http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/SWAD/deliverables/8.4.html

Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 12:34:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:11 UTC