- From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:55:31 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hi Antoine, I have seen this reply only now... I am checking up with all emails... I wonder why we cannot apply also the mapping relations between concept schemes? I went to the [3] page and I still think the proposal from Alasdair was more correct for me. In [3] I just notice this, but I do not think this is true (antough I may need to think better to this): skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broadMatch. skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:narrowMatch. skos:broadMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:overlappingMatch. Hope this helps Margherita -----Original Message----- From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac Sent: 29 November 2007 12:48 To: Alasdair Gray Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks Hi Alasdair, > 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. > Actually no! This is loose wording from me. I should have emphasized that the standard semantic relationship (skos:broader etc) are *typically* intra-thesaurus, while the mapping links are *typically* inter-thesaurus. Actually, I do think we might need skos:broader to apply between concept from different schemes for very specific situations like concept scheme (controlled) extension. But I think this is still not settled in the WG, and it was not my aim in [3] to make a decision about this. I'll try to remove the controversial text... > 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? > Indeed the very last part of [3] mentions this problem of mapping instances of skos:Concept to something else. Side comment: I don't see why collection would become anonymous nodes: [4] still say that they are of type skos:Collection, for instance... Cheers, Antoine > > > [1] http://www.ivoa.net/forum/semantics/0711/0617.htm > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102 > [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference#head-1bd16ef1c7db5b34accddb d17146f8e90c15f7f8
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 14:55:52 UTC