- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:44:50 +0000
- To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
- Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 22 Feb 2010, at 19:36, Jiří Procházka wrote: >>> I wonder if we as a group of people >>> interested in Semantic Web could come up with etiquette for ontology >>> mapping. >> >> Interesting topic! My €0.02: If the other vocabulary is likely to >> be >> >> - more stable >> - more mature >> - more likely to be widely used >> - more likely to be around for a longer time >> >> then you should map your terms to it. If not, don't. >> >> So IMO the rdfg vocabulary should map to the SPARQL Service >> Description >> vocabulary as soon as it becomes REC, but SPARQL-SD should NOT map >> to rdfg. > > Hi Richard, that also seems reasonable to me at first, but when > thinking > about it more thoroughly, there is value in both ontologies doing the > mapping to the other. Yes, if both sides agree, then two-way mappings are great. But this is only realistic if both vocabularies rate about equally on the criteria above. As an extreme example, it would be totally unrealistic to expect the RDFS vocabulary to link back to every vocabulary that has some sort of label/name property (all of which should be subproperties of rdfs:label). <snip> > Certain mapping statements make sense from PoV of one ontology, but > not > the other. I don't know what you mean. An example might help. But anyway, if you map to my ontology, but from my POV that mapping doesn't make sense, then I'm certainly not going to map back to yours. <snip> > If we allow ourselves to go a bit further, I thought it would be great > if there was some community developed service which would in automated > fashion give advice for improvement and rate user submitted (better > yet > WoD collected) ontologies judging their quality of design - most > importantly re-usability which basically means how is it aligned to > other similar ontologies. This would be probably very difficult, at > least because of varying opinions on this... I guess database > community > has something to say about that. I think that's a different issue. When it comes to rating the “quality” of a vocabulary, then the amount of mappings to other vocabularies is a very minor factor. First, because other things (especially amount of uptake and strength of the surrounding community) are much more important. Second, because adding the mappings is so easy. No vocabulary will succeed or fail because of its inclusion or lack of mappings. Nevertheless, I agree that we need services that support us in finding high-quality vocabularies, and that help drive the improvement of existing ones. But it's a complex subject, there are many existing efforts (Watson, Talis Schema Cache, Falcons Concept Search, ontologydesignpatterns.org, and I probably missed a few), and to me it's not obvious what is the right approach. Perhaps we don't need better ways of finding and creating vocabularies, but better ways of finding and creating communities around a domain that can then jointly agree on a vocabulary. All the best, Richard > > There are more things to talk about regarding this, but this is what I > have in mind so far. > > Best, > Jiri > >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> Jiri >>> >>>> >>>> Hope that helps. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> .greg >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#id41794 >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 20:45:25 UTC