W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2017

RE: Using iso-thes to publish 1:n-relations between skos:Concepts from different concept schemes

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:39:54 +0000
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010D2BE745@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
Hi Antoine,

On Friday, February 17, 2017 1:02 AM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] wrote:

> Yes the XKOS approach has some cons. It's a case where handling the provenance of
> correspondences than had a more important priority than
> easing the consumption of simple data. In fact the XKOS pattern is similar to the ones
> used in the Ontology Alignment domain in the Semantic Web community.

Right, and I guess that ideally you'd better publish both (and keep them in sync, and ensure that people can find them, and ...). In a way they are similar to void:LinkSets.

> I guess the decision on using MADS/RDF also depends on how the 'groupings' of
> concepts can be seen as 'real' SKOS concepts rather than ad-hoc, application-specific
> combination. In a way, this is a bit a case of pre-coordination vs post-coordination. In
> the MACS case MADS is a rather good fit as it's about headings which are largely
> designed for being combined.

That's an excellent criterion! If the vocabularies are post-coordinated, you can use madsrdf, if they are pre-coordinated, you shouldn't.

And it suggests that using madsrdf is the best approach for my use case.

Best,

Lars

> On 16/02/17 19:40, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> > Hi Antoine,
> >
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:37 AM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry for the delay answering this email.
> >
> > No problem: I'm looking for a good solution, not a quick one...
> >
> >> You are right in your understanding of ISO-THES' CompoundEquivalence is rather
> >> between terms/labels and concepts.
> >>
> >> MADS/RDF may have something better, with madsrdf:ComplexType and
> >> madsrdf:componentList
> >> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/

> >>
> >> But perhaps the closest thing available is the XKOS pattern for correspondences:
> >>
> http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/XKOS/1.0/OWL/xkos.html#correspondences

> >>
> >> (in fact I've delayed this mail because I wanted to review XKOS)
> >>
> >> I'm not sure it does all you need, though. XKOS doesn't have 'typed
> correspondences'
> >> of the form of 'OR' and 'AND' combinations, which were identified as a
> requirement in
> >> the SKOS context.
> >> The names they use are also not so great. See
> >> https://github.com/linked-statistics/xkos/issues/31

> >
> > Yes, I've been looking at XKOS, too, particularly for publishing the MACS dataset. I
> do like the approach since it makes the relation between the two concepts a first class
> citizen, so that you don't need to use reification if you want to add metadata to it.
> OTOH it makes it harder to use in a linked data environment when you publish one
> vocabulary and simply wants to link to another one (e. g. GND to LCSH or GND to
> STW). So currently my tendency would be to use mads/rdf.
> >
> > Thanks for your comment. If others have insights, please let me know.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lars
> >
> >> On 25/01/17 16:47, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> >>> Dear SKOS-Community,
> >>>
> >>> Here in the DNB we're currently revisiting how we publish our thesaurus
> mappings in
> >> RDF with a focus on how to publish 1:n-relations (i. e. where a concept in one KOS
> is
> >> mapped to two or more concepts in another KOS). We don't publish those relations
> yet
> >> since we haven't found a best practice. I've been looking at madsrdf which sort-
> of-
> >> works and last week I delved into iso-thes which has CompoundEquivalence which
> looks
> >> like a good starting point. However, if I understand the documentation correctly
> >> CompoundEquivalence can only be used between _terms_ (within one KOS?) and
> not
> >> between _skos:Concepts_.
> >>>
> >>> I'm aware that this is an old discussion [1] and probably not resolved yet.
> However,
> >> any insight you can provide would be most helpful!
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2011Jun/0007.html and
> >> subsequent messages...
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Lars
> >>>
> >>> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
> >>>
> >
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 13:40:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:52 UTC