RE: SWAD Deliverable 8.4 - last comments before EU submission

Hey Steve,

Hope you don't mind me forwarding this to the list, I think there's some
really valuable comments here, worth discussing in the open.

Cheers,

Al.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Cayzer [mailto:steve.cayzer@hp.com]
> Sent: 04 February 2004 21:10
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Subject: Re: SWAD Deliverable 8.4 - last comments before EU submission
> 
> > 
> 1). any mileage in having a short glossary? I'm thinking of terms like
> intension
> subsumed
> source
> target
> concept
> 
> - or just explain briefly 'in place' - especially the first 2.
> 
> 2). I'm slightly surprised that when you say two concepts 
> map, you don't
> give an ID for either concept. You say 'a hpm:concept with 
> the prefLabel
> 'xyz' maps to a gcl:concept with the prefLabel 'abc' '. 
> There's nothing to
> uniquely identify either, unless of course prefLabel is 
> inverseFunctional,
> which I doubt :) I suspect that this has been sorted out and 
> agreed on the
> thesaurus list, and that there's a good reason, but it would 
> be nice to say
> what that reason is.
> 
> 3). You say that an exact mapping can be made between two 
> concepts with
> different labels. Why not include such a mapping in your 
> examples for extra
> clarity?
> 
> 4). b. Inexact mapping
> replace
> "It is recommended to use major or minor mappings instead, wherever
> possible."
> with
> "You are recommended to use major or minor mappings instead, wherever
> possible."
> or
> "Use major or minor mappings instead, wherever possible."
> 
> 5). d. Minor
> replace
> "Usage: Use this property when there is some small overlap in 
> the intended
> meaning of source and target concepts."
> with
> "Usage: Use this property when there is some overlap in the 
> intended meaning
> of source and target concepts."
> 
> 6). e. Partial
> replace
> "It is recommended that either broad or narrow mappings are 
> used instead,
> wherever possible."
> with
> "You are recommended to use broad or narrow mappings instead, wherever
> possible."
> or
> "Use broad or narrow mappings instead, wherever possible."
> 
> 7). i,j,k - AND/OR/NOT
> You can combine in arbitrary combinations (one assumes at 
> least). Could say
> so.
> 
> 8). section 3
> I don't like the use of the term 'imply' - could be 
> misleading in a logical
> language! I'd prefer 'indicate' or 'state'.
> My particular beef is with this statement
> "A major mapping statement implies that the source and target 
> sets share
> greater than 50% of their members, a minor mapping implies 
> less than 50% but
> greater than 0. "
> which I'd replace with
> "A major mapping statement indicates that the source and target sets
> probably share greater than 50% of their members, a minor 
> mapping indicates
> less than 50% but greater than 0. "
> Similarly
> "A broad mapping states that the target set is a superset of 
> the source set.
> A narrow mapping states that the target set is a subset of 
> the source set."
> 
> 9). The scope notes in the RDF schema use the word 'implies', 
> this could be
> changed to 'states' if you think it's a good idea.
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
> To: "Matthews, BM (Brian) " <B.M.Matthews@rl.ac.uk>; "Wilson, 
> MD (Michael) "
> <M.D.Wilson@rl.ac.uk>
> Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:11 PM
> Subject: SWAD Deliverable 8.4 - last comments before EU submission
> 
> 
> >
> > http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/SWAD/deliverables/8.4.html
> >
> >
> > Alistair Miles
> > 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
> > Telephone: +44 (0)1235 445440
> >
> >
>

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 07:44:58 UTC