RE: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks

Hi all,

Based on my experience I agree with Alasdair:
- mapping should be kept separate from the skos version of the vocabularies
- we should use the SKOS mapping relationships.

Hope this helps
Margherita

-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Alasdair Gray
Sent: 29 November 2007 11:40
To: Antoine Isaac; public-esw-thes@w3.org
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks



Dear all,

It is funny the way these things work, but this issue is now starting to
appear within the work on developing vocabularies for astronomy [1].

My interpretation of the fact that there is development of a skos mapping
vocabulary, which has been further confirmed by Antoine's email, is that the
semantic relationships defined in the skos core [2] are to be used only for
relationships between concepts in the same scheme. However, this is not
explicitly stated in the text of the skos core. Will this be changed in the
next version of the skos core?

A question I would like to raise is how can I specify a mapping between a
collection in one vocabulary and a concept in another? It really is the
collection as a whole that matches the concept. However, the collection
becomes an anonymous node in the rdf. Is it the case that each member of the
collection should be specified as a narrowMatch of the concept?

Thanks,

Alasdair


[1] http://www.ivoa.net/forum/semantics/0711/0617.htm
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102


Alasdair J G Gray
Research Associate: Explicator Project http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk
Computer Science, University of Glasgow 0141 330 6292


-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
Sent: 27 November 2007 22:12
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
Subject: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks


Dear all,

After a long period of silence, I have attached a new proposal [1] for a

mapping vocabulary for SKOS to the page dedicated to ISSUE-39 [2]

A bit of history. Some months ago, I proposed a first solution, trying 
to re-use the standard SKOS semantic relations (broader, narrower, 
related) to map concepts from different schemes [3]. This first 
proposal, submitted to the SKOS community list, was rejected (see 
discussion [4]).

The new proposal hence follows an opposite approach. It is indeed more 
conservative, trying to consolidate the existing SKOS mapping vocabulary

[5]. It therefore does not mix with the standard SKOS intra-scheme 
relations vocabulary.
It also still delegates a lot of problems to other issues (like concept 
coordination [6]). But I hope it will be easier to make a decision that way.

Comments are highly welcome! (I would like hereby to thank the SKOS 
community for all the relevant points that were made last time)

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/Proposal
Two
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/Proposal
One
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Jul/0009.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/
[6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 14:40:11 UTC