W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:39:58 -0000
Message-ID: <BED9D15F73EDDE48BF480604236A456004BBC16B@ex1.ad.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

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?



[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
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

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



[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/
[5] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/
[6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 10:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:43 UTC