- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:47:55 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Alistair, About the two aspects below: > > Minimum consensus: Using SKOS, it should be possible to state broader, narrower, related and exact (equivalent) semantic links between concepts from different concept schemes. > [...] > > (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? Again (I guess you got it right, but I want to clarify your "minimum consensus" sentence, which I fear will be over-interpreted) the outcome of previous discussion when I released the first proposal for mapping vocabulary [1] was that there should be different properties for mapping links, because there is an essential distinction between the mapping links and the standard semantic relations. This distinction is mainly about confidence and authority status: standard relations are the result of careful vocabulary building, while mapping links are much less strong. Just because it is likely that the context and use of the mapped concepts are different! The whole thread encompassing [1,2,3] discusses this. And, again, when I say that it is necessary to allow for skos:broader between scheme, it is not for mapping purposes, but for extension purposes. Cf [2], Doug about these inter-thesaurus skos:broader. So there is still a need for a specific vocabulary for mapping. Cheers, Antoine [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Jul/0018.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Aug/0000.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Aug/0003.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 18:48:02 UTC