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

Hi Alistair, All,

This may be covered elsewhere, but in case it isn't there is relevance 
to the current discussion.

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> (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"?
I would say there is a fourth issue here which is how can collections be 
involved in mappings, both within a vocabulary and across vocabularies.

We have a use case for this with our astronomy vocabularies. (I'll try 
to send round details in the next couple of days.)



Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:05:42 UTC