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

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

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:08:23 +0100
To: Alasdair J G Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DAE0B@hqgiex01.fao.org>
I also agree with the idea that intra-thesaurus relationships should be
different from the inter-thesaurus relationships.
A parallel from the 2 types of relationships may help (e.g. skos:narrowMatch
can be compared to skos:narrower  and skos:broadMatch  can be compared to
skos:broader, etc.)

	-----Original Message-----
	From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair J G Gray
	Sent: 17 December 2007 11:52
	To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
	Cc: Antoine Isaac; public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org
	Subject: Re: [SKOS] A new proposal for ISSUE-39
	Hi Alistair, all,
	Sorry to take so long to reply.
	Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

			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
			in the skos core [2] are to be used only for
			between concepts in the same scheme.
			However, this is not explicitly stated in the text of
the skos core.
			Will this be changed in the next version of the skos

		We don't know yet, it's under discussion. Do you have any

	I very much believe that there is a difference between the
relationships that take place within a vocabulary and those that take place
between vocabularies.
	In the first case (intra-vocabulary relationships), all the concepts
form part of a coherent whole and the relationships can be seen as a
statement of fact. The relationships form part of the vocabulary, meaning
that if you make use of the vocabulary then you accept all the
intra-vocabulary relationships.
	In the second case (inter-vocabulary mappings), the mappings between
the concepts are "fuzzier" and are more a statement of one person's, or
group's, beliefs. The vocabularies can be used without accepting the
statements made about the mappings.
	We are working with the idea that several different groups will
declare their mappings between vocabularies, and users can load in the one
that they agree with. Over time, it may be the case that one or two sets of
mappings become the de facto standard but that there will be an evolution
process to this state.

			A question I would like to raise is how can I specify
			mapping between a collection in one vocabulary and a
			in another? It really is the collection as a whole
			matches the concept. However, the collection becomes
			anonymous node in the rdf. Is it the case that each
member of 
			the collection should be specified as a narrowMatch
of the concept?

		It'd be great if you could give us some more detail on this
particular requirement, e.g. the actual concepts you want to map between.

	Here is an example taken from mapping a vocabulary of journal
keywords (AAKeys) [1] to the astronomical outreach imagery meta data
vocabulary (AOIM) [2].
	In the journal keywords there is the following:

		    NT AAKeys:[Binary stars]

	where the collection AAKeys:[Binary stars] has the members 

	*	AAKeys:Binaries close 
	*	AAKeys:Binaries eclipsing 
	*	AAKeys:Binaries general 
	*	AAKeys:Binaries spectroscopic 
	*	AAKeys:Binaries symbiotic 
	*	AAKeys:Binaries visual 

	and each of these has no other relationships.
	In the aoim vocabulary, there is the following:

		    NT AOIM:[Grouping]

	where the collection AOIM:[Grouping] has the members

	*	AOIM:Binary 
	*	AOIM:Triple 
	*	AOIM:Multiple 
	*	AOIM:Cluster 

		*	AOIM:Open 
		*	AOIM:Globular 

	The concepts AOIM:Open and AOIM:Globular are narrower terms of
	The collection AAKeys:[Binary stars] is an exactMatch for the concept
	There are about half a dozen similar cases in mapping these two
	Hope you are able to understand this.
	[2] http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/latest/AOIMetadata.html
	Dr Alasdair J G Gray
	Explicator project 
	Office: F161
	Tel: 	+44 141 330 6292
	Postal: Computing Science,
		17 Lilybank Gardens,
		University of Glasgow,
		G12 8QQ, UK.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 13:08:41 UTC

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