- From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:29:13 +0000
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 at 12:04:32, Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk> wrote >The problem for us is that we are trying to generate a skos version of >someone else's vocabulary which should not alter the structure or the >available terms. First, we should note that there is not a "Gamma rays" >term in the A&A vocabulary, however, there is a collection of three >terms that involve gamma rays. As such, the most natural mapping >declaration for a user who does not understand vocabulary issues is to >say that the gamma ray collection is an exact match for the gamma ray >concept in the AOIM vocabulary. When this is translated to skos we now >believe that each member of the gamma ray collection in the A&A >vocabulary should be a skos:narrowMatch for the gamma ray concept in >the AOIM vocabulary, i.e. > >aoim:gammaRay >skos:narrowMatch aAndA:gammaRayBursts > aAndA:gammaRayObservations > aAndA:gammaRayTheory . Yes, this seems quite an acceptable thing to do. You are not mapping the array (collection) as an exact match to a concept in the other scheme, but are mapping some individual concepts as narrower matches, so the issue of "mapping between a collection and a concept" does not arise. My only remaining quibble would be that gamma ray observations and theory are not "kinds of" gamma rays, so that a related match would be more appropriate than a narrow match, but when you are dealing with thesauri that do not conform to the rules I suppose that you needn't be obliged to make your mapping conform either. Leonard -- Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will) Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276 L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 12:34:48 UTC