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

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

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:26:42 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D03B3F7C4@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

Lots of very interesting stuff here!

First, I'd like to try to summarise the minimum consensus position. I.e. what's the least we can agree on? ...

Minimum consensus: Using SKOS, it should be possible to state broader, narrower, related and exact (equivalent) semantic links between concepts from different concept schemes. 

Moving beyond this, I think there a number of issues with our current proposals which need further discussion.

I'd like to identify three sub-issues here, which could be discussed independently. I'll try to separate them out here, then respond in more detail to each one in separate mails.

(ISSUE-39A) Should "grouping" constructs for mapping be included, and if so, what are their semantics?

(ISSUE-39B) Is it necessary to have parallel vocabulary (skos:broader // skos:broadMatch etc.)? If not, how do you differentiate between intra-scheme vs. inter-scheme semantic links?

(ISSUE-39C) What's the difference between "related" and "overlapping"? Is there enough precedent to justify a new property for "overlapping"?



Alistair Miles
Research Associate
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 27 November 2007 22:12
> To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks
> Dear all,
> After a long period of silence, I have attached a new 
> proposal [1] for a mapping vocabulary for SKOS to the page 
> dedicated to ISSUE-39 [2]
> A bit of history. Some months ago, I proposed a first 
> solution, trying to re-use the standard SKOS semantic 
> relations (broader, narrower,
> related) to map concepts from different schemes [3]. This 
> first proposal, submitted to the SKOS community list, was 
> rejected (see discussion [4]).
> The new proposal hence follows an opposite approach. It is 
> indeed more conservative, trying to consolidate the existing 
> SKOS mapping vocabulary [5]. It therefore does not mix with 
> the standard SKOS intra-scheme relations vocabulary.
> It also still delegates a lot of problems to other issues 
> (like concept coordination [6]). But I hope it will be easier 
> to make a decision that way.
> Comments are highly welcome! (I would like hereby to thank 
> the SKOS community for all the relevant points that were made 
> last time)
> Cheers,
> Antoine
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMappin
> g/ProposalTwo
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMappin
> g/ProposalOne
> [4] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Jul/0009.html
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 17:26:57 UTC

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