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

Hi Antoine,

I am reading [4], and initially I did not like so much the name
"skos:relatedMatch". I think was too generic... I agree that major and minor
were very difficult to understand, but skos:overlappingMatch for me was
better. But now I see that we intend to cover not only overlapping Matches,
but also other kind of matches... So I think "skos:relatedMatch" its fine.

I agree with proposal 1: I would not say skos:exactMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf
skos:broadMatch

Concerning "shall we allow cycles for broadMatch and narrowMatch?" I would
say no.

I agree that broadMatch and exactMatch are transitive.

At the end of the file, the sentence "PROPOSAL 2: a NEW ISSUE is raised on
mapping links between conceptual entities that are not of type skos:Concept"
means that we can map also for example classifications schemes? or
properties?

Thanks
Margherita


-----Original Message-----
From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
Sent: 16 December 2007 22:11
To: SWD WG
Subject: Re: [SKOS] A revised proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks
[CORRECTION]



Dear all,

Sorry I realized that I has made a mistake with my different version of 
the wiki page.
The reference [4] below, for the proposal, should read
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo?a
ction=recall&rev=5

(there was still a problem with some overlappingMatch occurrences)

Cheers,

Antoine
>
> Dear all,
>
> Regarding
>> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Antoine to send a msg proposing a resolution for
>> next week telecon on ISSUE-39 considering Alisatir's 3 subtopics 
>> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action07]
>
> I would propose for next telecon that the workgroup accepts [4] as a
> solution to ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks [3].
> This proposal is introduced in the mail attached below (also 
> accessible at [6])
>
> With respect to the 3 sub-topics raised by Alistair [7], the proposals
> made in the wiki page [4] are:
>
>> (ISSUE-39A) Should "grouping" constructs for mapping be included, and
>> if so, what are their semantics?
> -> This sub-issue is postponed until until a solution has been found
> to ISSUE-40 ConceptCoordination [8] and ISSUE-45
> NaryLinksBetweenDescriptorsAndNonDescriptors [9], which are about very 
> similar problems.
>
>> (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?
> -> This sub-issue is dealt with: the SKOS mapping relations are
> introduced as parallel to the existing SKOS semantic relations
> (skos:broader, etc)
>
>> (ISSUE-39C) What's the difference between "related" and
>> "overlapping"? Is there enough precedent to justify a new property 
>> for "overlapping"?
> -> This sub-issue is dealt with: only skos:relatedMatch is kept in the
> proposal, and a discussion item gives motivation for it.
>
>
> Of course I invite the WG to consider this proposal considering any
> new argument that could have been raised on the SWD and SKOS lists 
> between now and next week. The current proposal tries to take into 
> account all the feedback we got on the subject over the past months, 
> but the topic was very active over the past days (over 20 mails in two 
> weeks!).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/39
> [4]
>
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo?a
ction=recall&rev=4 
>
> [6] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0046.html
> [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0024.html
> [8] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40
> [9] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/45
>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Following last week's teleconference [1], and, especially, the
>> insightful comments got from the SKOS mailing lists [2] (thanks again 
>> to all of you who contributed to this important discussion!), I have 
>> revised my proposal for ISSUE-39 conceptualMappingLinks [3]. The 
>> result is accessible at [4]
>>
>> The main differences with the previous version [5] are:
>> - skos:overlappingMatch is not kept.
>> - there is a formal proposal for postponing resolution on: part of
>> RDFS and OWL semantics, semantic conditions, inconsistent examples, 
>> entailment rules and syntactic constraints. I asked for feedback last 
>> week, and so far there has been only one comment on the axioms of 
>> [5]. I guess none of us has the time for this between now and the end 
>> of the year :-(
>> - there is a formal proposal to raise an issue on mapping between 
>> conceptual entities (e.g. groupings) that are not of type skos:Concept
>> - the discussion section has been revised: it now especially includes 
>> a paragraph on owl:sameAs vs skos:exactMatch and a paragraph on 
>> allowing mapping statements withing one concept scheme
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html
>> [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Nov/0013.html, 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Dec/0010.html, 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Dec/0000.html
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/39
>> [4] 
>>
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo?a
ction=recall&rev=4 
>>
>> [5]
>>
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo?a
ction=recall&rev=3 
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 13:33:10 UTC