Re: Relationships involving collections

Leonard Will wrote:
> 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.
>   
By providing the user feedback in the interface, if they thought the 
same as you then they would be able to update the mapping before 
accepting it.

Alasdair
> Leonard
>
>
>