- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:18:45 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=Qqob92+zDFQgifOHcuGk6VxwwDpfuTHLbzxTG_nDf2oQ@mail.gmail.com>
You are correct. Like I said, the identity semantics of concepts are very slippery and tricky, so it's not worth actually mapping. Jim On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>wrote: > Jim, > > I would be very wary of making formal associations with the SKOS vocab - > per my understanding, SKOS is by design very loose (to the extent that by > itself it effectively has no formal semantics or inferential power) - it is > intended to support information retrieval applications rather than > inference or formal descriptions. > > So to say, for example, that specializationOf is a superproperty of > skos:broaderTransitive is to say it's effectively semantics-free, which is > not how I see it. > > > #g > -- > > > > On 11/10/2012 17:33, Jim McCusker wrote: > >> I think it's a generalization of exactMatch and closeMatch. >> specializationOf is, to my eye, a superproperty of skos:broaderTransitive. >> Concepts are a little different, since they can be much fuzzier than >> things >> in the world. Is a narrower concept in any sense the same "thing" as it's >> broader counterpart? I predicted something like this (but not quite) in a >> 2010 OWLed paper, that we would need something like SKOS for >> non-conceptual >> things: >> >> http://www.webont.org/owled/**2010/papers/owled2010_**submission_12.pdf<http://www.webont.org/owled/2010/papers/owled2010_submission_12.pdf> >> >> Jim >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >>> >>> Interesting comment. I changed subject lines to disconnect it from the >>> other thread. How do you think prov:alternateOf compliments the >>> mappings predicates in skos? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:53 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> The alternateOf relation is provided mainly for complex scenarios >>>>> involving things that change over time, and is not one of the core >>>>> relationships that casual users of PROV will employ routinely. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would actually like to see the linked data community adopt alternateOf >>>> >>> in >>> >>>> place of owl:sameAs for their work. It's a reasonable replacement, as >>>> alternateOf is effectively a superproperty of sameAs. If that happens, >>>> it >>>> would be the most-used concept from PROV! This is a separate discussion, >>>> >>> but >>> >>>> I think it's important to keep this in mind when we discuss it. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> -- >>>> Jim McCusker >>>> Programmer Analyst >>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >>>> Yale School of Medicine >>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436 >>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.**yale.edu<http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu> >>>> >>>> PhD Student >>>> Tetherless World Constellation >>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >>>> http://tw.rpi.edu >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 02:19:35 UTC