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

Hi all,

Lots of very interesting stuff here!

First, I'd like to try to summarise the minimum consensus position. I.e. what's the least we can agree on? ...

Minimum consensus: Using SKOS, it should be possible to state broader, narrower, related and exact (equivalent) semantic links between concepts from different concept schemes. 

Moving beyond this, I think there a number of issues with our current proposals which need further discussion.

I'd like to identify three sub-issues here, which could be discussed independently. I'll try to separate them out here, then respond in more detail to each one in separate mails.

(ISSUE-39A) Should "grouping" constructs for mapping be included, and if so, what are their semantics?

(ISSUE-39B) Is it necessary to have parallel vocabulary (skos:broader // skos:broadMatch etc.)? If not, how do you differentiate between intra-scheme vs. inter-scheme semantic links?

(ISSUE-39C) What's the difference between "related" and "overlapping"? Is there enough precedent to justify a new property for "overlapping"?

Cheers,

Alistair

--
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 27 November 2007 22:12
> To: public-swd-wg@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/ConceptualMappin
> g/ProposalTwo
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMappin
> g/ProposalOne
> [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 17:26:57 UTC