W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2005

mapping between SKOS and W3C Bookmarks vocabs

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:36:37 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DBCA@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Hi,

We were talking about the relationship between SKOS and the W3C RDF bookmarks work at the SWIG meeting this morning, this mail is a first tentative bidirectional mapping between the two vocabs with caveats, as a basis for further discussion.

(N.B. I used the version of the bookmarks schema at http://www.w3.org/2002/01/bookmark which jose kahan tells me is out of date wrt the version used in the firefox plugin)

(Re below, danbri doesn't a bm:Bookmark look a lot like a content label?)

(Jose K please correct me if I used the bm vocab wrong) 

(Also somebody slap me if my N3 rule syntax is wrong, I tried to remember how it goes)

--------

@prefix bm: <http://www.w3.org/2002/01/bookmark#>.
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>.


# BM => SKOS
# ----------

{
?x a bm:Topic .
}
=>
{
?x a skos:Concept .
}

{
?x bm:subTopicOf ?y .
}
=>
{
?x skos:broader ?y .
}

{
?b a bm:Bookmark .
?b bm:recalls ?r .
?b bm:hasTopic ?t .
}
=>
{
?r skos:subject ?t .
}


# SKOS => BM
# ----------

{
?x a skos:Concept .
}
=>
{
?x a bm:Topic .
}

{
?x skos:broader ?y .
}
=>
{
?x bm:subTopicOf ?y .
}

{
?r skos:subject ?c .
}
=>
{
[] 	a bm:Bookmark ;
	bm:hasTopic ?c ;
	bm:recalls ?r .
}

--------

I think the above mapping is semantically appropriate.  But I think there is a practical difficulty with the semantics of the above mapping, because the meaning of a bm:hasTopic assertion will be highly variable and therefore ambiguous, and that therefore the skos:subject property is an innapropriate inference.  I expect that the meaning of placing a bookmark in a particular 'folder' (as many will see it) will vary within and across bookmark collections (The 'topic' will *not* always represent the *subject* of the bookmarked resource).  This ambiguity wrt the 'categorisation' of a bookmark is the motivation behind the 'rude categorisation' suggestion I posted to public-esw-thes@w3.org today - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Mar/0001.html

Cheers,

Alistair.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 20:37:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:13 GMT