- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:47:44 +0100
- To: Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
- CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
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-1bd16ef1c7db5b34accddbd17146f8e90c15f7f8
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 11:48:01 UTC