W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:15:04 +0100
Message-ID: <47556EF8.6040802@few.vu.nl>
To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
CC: Alasdair Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org

Hi Margherita,

(and thank you for your comments)
> I wonder why we cannot apply also the mapping relations between concept
> schemes? 

But I have put the mapping relations in [3] for this purpose! Have I 
said the contrary somewhere?
I'm just saying that for certain situations -- which are not about 
mapping, but extension -- we can use semantic relations (broader etc) 
between different schemes as well. But that does not say that 
skos:braoder will be used for mapping.

> I went to the [3] page and I still think the proposal from Alasdair was more
> correct for me.

Could you please clarify? I don't see why [3] contradicts Alasdair's 
> In [3] I just notice this, but I do not think this is true (antough I may
> need to think better to this):
>   skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broadMatch.
>   skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:narrowMatch.
>   skos:broadMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:overlappingMatch.

Well actually I had exactly the same thought, except that my thinking 
better to this did not bring obvious conclusions ;-) Hence my marking 
these axioms as controversial in [3].

> Hope this helps

It does! (except for the second bit about comparing Alasdair's proposal 
and mine, which is unclear for me, sorry...)


> Margherita
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 29 November 2007 12:48
> To: Alasdair Gray
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks
> Hi Alasdair,
>> My interpretation of the fact that there is development of a skos 
>> mapping vocabulary, which has been further confirmed by Antoine's 
>> email, is that the semantic relationships defined in the skos core [2] 
>> are to be used only for relationships between concepts in the same 
>> scheme.
> Actually no! This is loose wording from me. I should have emphasized 
> that the standard semantic relationship (skos:broader etc) are 
> *typically* intra-thesaurus, while the mapping links are *typically* 
> inter-thesaurus. Actually, I do think we might need skos:broader to 
> apply between concept from different schemes for very specific 
> situations like concept scheme (controlled) extension.
> But I think this is still not settled in the WG, and it was not my aim 
> in [3] to make a decision about this. I'll try to remove the 
> controversial text...
>> A question I would like to raise is how can I specify a mapping 
>> between a collection in one vocabulary and a concept in another? It 
>> really is the collection as a whole that matches the concept. However, 
>> the collection becomes an anonymous node in the rdf. Is it the case 
>> that each member of the collection should be specified as a 
>> narrowMatch of the concept?
> Indeed the very last part of [3] mentions this problem of mapping 
> instances of skos:Concept to something else.
> Side comment: I don't see why collection would become anonymous nodes: 
> [4] still say that they are of type skos:Collection, for instance...
> Cheers,
> Antoine
>> [1] http://www.ivoa.net/forum/semantics/0711/0617.htm
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo
> [4] 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference#head-1bd16ef1c7db5b34accddb
> d17146f8e90c15f7f8
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 15:15:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:46 UTC