- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:34:21 +0100
- 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:prefLabel>Cadavers</skos:prefLabel> <skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="Artstor"/> </skos:Concept> <skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="b"> <skos:prefLabel>Dead animals</skos:prefLabel> <skos:altLabel>Cadavers</skos:altLabel> <skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="LOCTGM"/> </skos:Concept> <skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="c"> <skos:prefLabel>Dead persons</skos:prefLabel> <skos:altLabel>Cadavers</skos:altLabel> <skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="LOCTGM"/> </skos:Concept> ... 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:exactMatch> <skos-map:OR> <skos-map:memberList rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="b"/> <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="c"/> </skos-map:memberList> </skos-map:OR> </skos-map:exactMatch> </rdf:Description> ... and the LOCTGM -> Artstor mapping would be expressed as ... <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="b"> <skos-map:broadMatch rdf:nodeID="a"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="c"> <skos-map:broadMatch rdf:nodeID="a"/> </rdf:Description> 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:AltToPrefLabelMatch> <test:source rdf:nodeID="b"/> <test:target rdf:nodeID="a"/> <test:stringMatch>Cadaver</skos-map:stringMatch> </test:AltToPrefLabelMapping> 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 :). Yours, Alistair. [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 Chilton Didcot 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