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: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:54:50 +0100
Message-ID: <58AB033A.5040202@few.vu.nl>
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Lars,

On 20/02/17 14:39, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> 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.


Yes probably!


>
>> 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.


Er isn't it the other way round? MADS was made for LCSH...

Antoine

>
> 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 14:55:27 UTC

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