- From: Stella Dextre Clarke <stella@lukehouse.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:53:27 +0000
- To: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
This sounds to me like either a red herring or a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If I understand the original proposition correctly, during a mapping exercise a housekeeping device is needed to keep track of what concepts have been dealt with, and which ones still await investigation. In the old days I used to print out a simple list of all the concepts to be mapped, work systematically through them and tick them off in pencil when they were done (whether or not a valid mapping turned out to be feasible). Nowadays, there must be an easy and more reliable electronic way of keeping track. But (in my view) it would be a mistake to encode it as though it were a semantic property. It is simply a housekeeping discipline which normally you would hide rather than expose it to the world (but you could choose). A "null relationship" is something different, much harder to be sure of, and as Antoine points out, liable to prove misleading as soon as the target vocabulary is updated. Have a good weekend, Stella -- ***************************************************** Stella Dextre Clarke Information Consultant Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8RR, UK Tel: 01235-833-298 Fax: 01235-863-298 stella@lukehouse.org ***************************************************** . On 28/01/2011 16:06, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Forwarding this interesting discussion to the SKOS list... > Starts at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0113.html > > Antoine > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no > matching entity in) > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:44:30 +0100 > From: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu> > To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Emmanuelle Bermes > <manue.fig@gmail.com> > CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld > <public-xg-lld@w3.org> > > > > Hello Emanuelle, hello Bernard, > Thanks for the clarifications about the different cases, Bernard - my > initial post subsumed "false positives" under #2, whereas it is better > and more exactly treated as the case Emanuelle deals with (#1). > I think Bernards proposition would nicely cover both cases, and in my > eyes it could fit well with the SKOS matching properties. > However, when vocabulary V2 in the statement > X skos-plus:noMatchIn V2 > is enhanced, the statement may turn wrong. > (Maybe we here have a general mismatch of the Open World Assumption in > the Semantic Web and the closed world of authorities in the library > world.) > Anyway, to deal with this - simply reporting the fact, no reasoning > intended ... -, it could be helpful to minute the time when the > statement was made, or the version of V2, if V2 is versioned in some way. > Any ideas about this? > About the generalization of SKOS mapping properties, in order to avoid > false owl:sameAs: The latter is clearly a requirement, which we > discussed in the Authority Cluster too. There we came up with the > proposition to use umbel:isLike. I'm not sure if SKOS (plus) should > extend the area where it deals with owl:Things in general - even > though it's done a very good job with its labeling und annotation > properties. I wonder what other people think about this. > Cheers, Joachim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > *Von:* Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com] > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2011 20:15 > *An:* Emmanuelle Bermes > *Cc:* Neubert Joachim; Antoine Isaac; public-xg-lld > *Betreff:* Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no > matching entity in) > > hello all > > two points : > > First the case made by Emmanuelle (#1) is not the same as the one > made by Joachim (#2) > > #1 "Y (in vocabulary V2) is not exactMatch of X (in vocabulary V1)" > #2 "X (in vocabulary V1) has no match in vocabulary V2" > > #1 is an assertion of exclusion of a false positive (e.g., false > assumptions based on homographs), > whereas #2 is the assertion of a global absence of match. > > The logical relationship between the two is, for a given X > > #2 <=> forAll Y, #1 > > Second, using X owl:differentFrom Y to express #1 is a bit > misleading. > It means that X is not the same as Y (in the very strong sense of > owl:sameAs) > That does not mean they could not be matched. > > (X skos:exactMatch Y) and (X owl:differentFrom Y) are not > necessarily inconsistent triples. > In fact I would say that most of the times, concepts matched, even > by skos:exactMatch are not the same is the sense of OWL. Otherwise you > would declare owl:sameAs instead of skos:exactMatch :) > > The more so with broadMatch, closeMatch and narrowMatch which > somehow implicitly entail that the concepts matched are indeed > different (slightly different, more generic, more specific) > > #1 and #2 can be expressed using convoluted OWL constructions > using owl:hasValue restrictions and owl:Nothing ... expression of > which is let to the reader as exercise :) > > It would be coool to have an extension of skos enabling direct > such declarations, such as > > X skos-plus:noMatchIn V2 (Concept to ConceptScheme) > X skos-plus:isNoMatchOf Y (Concept to Concept) > > An by the way, those properties could be part of a skos-plus > extension including generalization of skos mapping properties to > resources which are not skos:Concept, enabling alternatives to the > proliferation of abusive owl:sameAs - as discussed with Ivan Herman > last week at SemWebPro Paris ... and tweeted by Emmanuelle > http://twitter.com/#!/figoblog/status/27400161554595840 en > français dans le texte :) > > Cheers > > Bernard > > > > 2011/1/27 Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com > <mailto:manue.fig@gmail.com>> > > Joachim, > > Actually we identified a similar use case at BnF. > Context is an automated matching or alignment between 2 > datasets, that > has to be repeated on a regular basis (when 1 dataset or the > other is > updated). > A manual quality check process is set up to check the quality > of the > alignement process. > A human operator checks that 2 entities that could be > automatically > matched are actually different. > He wants to record this fact so that in future matchings the > manual > work doesn't have to be done again. > > We plan to use owl:differentFrom to express that those 2 > entities are different. > It seems to me that this case relates to a relationship > between two > URIs in 2 different datasets, rather than a skos:note on one > of the > (un)matched concepts. > > Emmanuelle > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Neubert Joachim > <J.Neubert@zbw.eu <mailto:J.Neubert@zbw.eu>> wrote: > > Hi Bernard, > > > > thanks for your answer. I'm happy that I'm not the only one with a > > requirement for this quite ephemeral feature ;) > > > > However, I'm not sure if your solution solves the problem I had in > mind: My > > idea was to express a workflow status. If I got it right, your class > NoMatch > > covers all entities without "Cells" (skos relationships) at a given > point in > > time. But it does not say "for this entity, I have checked > intellectually > > that currently no such relationship can be established". > > > > That said, your approach seems quite useful to get hold of the NoMatch > > entities (and updates automatically if any mapping triple is > inserted). I > > have no experience with reification - is it well supported in your > software > > environment, and does the reification of all skos mapping triples > perform > > well with large vocabularies? It would be very interesting to hear more > > about the "Terminology Alignment Environment", especially since we have > > plans to create mappings between different vocabs in the field of > economics. > > > > Cheers, Joachim > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>] > > Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2011 00:46 > > An: Antoine Isaac > > Cc: Neubert Joachim; public-xg-lld > > Betreff: Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching > > entity in) > > > > Minor correction and complement of information. > > > > The quoted TAE project correct name is "Thesaurus Alignment > Environment". > > It's currently under development under the OPOCE umbrella, with the > > technical collaboration of INRIA and Mondeca. > > There is no public visibility of this project at this point of time, no > > pointer, sorry ... > > > > 2011/1/21 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>> > >> > >> Hello all > >> > >> In the Terminology Alignment Experiment, some applications indeed > want to > >> have this absence of mapping made explicit. > >> We did it using a subclassing of alignment "Cell", which reifies a > skos > >> mapping (allowing to put metadata on it) between entity1 in source > >> vocabulary and entity2 in the target vocabulary, in the following way. > >> > >> <owl:Class rdf:about="#NoMatch"> > >> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">No Match</rdfs:label> > >> <rdfs:subClassOf > >> > rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#Cell"/> > >> <rdfs:subClassOf> > >> <owl:Restriction> > >> <owl:cardinality > >> rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:cardinality> > >> <owl:onProperty > >> > rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#entity2"/> > >> </owl:Restriction> > >> </rdfs:subClassOf> > >> </owl:Class> > >> > >> The entity1 in a "NoMatch" cell has no entity2 match whatsoever. > >> > >> Maybe convoluted, but saying exactly waht it means. > >> > >> Bernard > >> > >> > >> > >> 2011/1/20 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> > >>> > >>> Hi Joachim, > >>> > >>> No, I've never seen this. It looks in fact a bit odd, as the aligned > >>> vocabularies may be extended one day so that a mapping can be found. > >>> > >>> Re. the representation, there must be ways to express this, using OWL > >>> class construction mechanisms (your instance of SWD would be in > instance of > >>> the complement class to the class of reosurces that have a SKOS > mapping > >>> property statement with a concept from STW). But I'd be tempted to > wait for > >>> feedback to your questions on the other lists before trying it ;-) > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Antoine > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Maybe one of you - from the VocAlign Cluster, especially ;) - has > dealt > >>>> with this? > >>>> > >>>> Any hints are appreciated - > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, Joachim > >>>> > >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >>>> Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org > <mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org> > [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org > <mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org>] Im > >>>> Auftrag von Neubert Joachim > >>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2011 14:11 > >>>> An: Semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:Semantic-web@w3.org> > >>>> Betreff: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching > entity > >>>> in) > >>>> > >>>> When matching and mapping two datasets, it is common that - on both > >>>> sides - you find entities which don't have a matching entity on > the other > >>>> side. > >>>> > >>>> When that non-matching was verified intellectually, it could be > valuable > >>>> to report this fact - especially to keep track of "false positives" > >>>> (e.g. matching labels, but different concepts in SKOS systems). > >>>> Basically, this states a relation between an entity - e.g., a > >>>> skos:Concept - and a set of entities - as defined e.g. by a > >>>> skos:ConceptScheme or a void:Dataset. > >>>> > >>>> Are you aware of any pattern to express this in RDF? > >>>> > >>>> I consider coining something like > >>>> > >>>> ext:noMatchingEntity rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note . > >>>> > >>>> Since the date of the above mentioned verification should be > reported, > >>>> you could end up along the lines the following example > >>>> > >>>> <http://d-nb.info/gnd/4125416-8> ext:noMatchingEntity > >>>> [ rdf:value<http://zbw.eu/stw> ; > >>>> dcterms:modified "2010-01-25"^^xsd:date ] . > >>>> > >>>> What do you think? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, Joachim > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Bernard Vatant > >> Senior Consultant > >> Vocabulary & Data Engineering > >> Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 > >> Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> > >> ---------------------------------------------------- > >> Mondeca > >> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France > >> Web: http://www.mondeca.com > >> Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com > >> ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -- > > Bernard Vatant > > Senior Consultant > > Vocabulary & Data Engineering > > Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 > > Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mondeca > > 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France > > Web: http://www.mondeca.com > > Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -- > Bernard Vatant > Senior Consultant > Vocabulary & Data Engineering > Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 > Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> > ---------------------------------------------------- > Mondeca > 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France > Web: http://www.mondeca.com > Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com > ---------------------------------------------------- >
Received on Friday, 28 January 2011 16:54:07 UTC