W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [SKOS] On ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary and ISSUE-74 MappingPropertyConventions

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:33:06 +0100
Message-ID: <47B8B622.8060206@few.vu.nl>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Dear all,

I propose to OPEN ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary [1] and consider 
CLOSEing it by the following proposal:

RESOLUTION: The vocabulary for mapping links is parallel to the 
vocabulary for (paradigmatic) semantic relationships. It includes a 
skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch which mirror 
skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related.

This I think renders well the different discussions that took place on 
the SKOS and SWD list, as well as previous mapping vocabulary proposals, 
such as [2], which inspired I guess the design of the former SKOS 
mapping vocabulary.
ISome more details: the text of [3] which we adopted as a resolution for 
ISSUE-39 Conceptual mapping link [4,5] includes the following

> Rather, it assumes that mapping links, as a parallel vocabulary to the 
> SKOS semantic relations (see discussion 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Dec/0033.html>), 
> should somehow "inherit" the semantics of these relations. With the 
> fundamental difference that mapping does not come with the same 
> confidence and authority status than established semantic relations. 
> For instance, a mapping statement may not be endorsed by the 
> creator(s) of the concepts that are mapped.

This goes against ISSUE-71 [1] proposing the following option as an 
possible alternative to keeping the parallel vocabulary for mapping:

> use skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related for
> mapping, providing guidance 

I strongly disagree with it! It was precisely the reaction *against* 
using skos:broader/related/narrower for mapping which made me go for 
using parallel mapping vocabulary [3] (I was against it at the 
begining). I don't want us to lose time having again the same discussion!

Notice that one of the reason for refusing to use the paradimatic 
broader/narrower/related also for mapping is linked to fundamental 
considerations related to norm and authority.
On the one hand, creating paradigmatic relationships such as 
skos:broader statement results from the core activity of KOS design, 
which is supposed to imply e.g. certain soundness properties for the 
resulting semantic network. Mapping is a different activity, where the 
aim is not to create a new coherent KOS but to bridge two KOS with 
relationships that may be of different qualitative and authoritative level.
My understanding is that the semantic commitment (with respect to the 
original intended meaning of the linked concepts) is much stronger when 
skos:broader than when using skos:broadMatch.
I would consider that this typically happens because a mapping link 
between two schemes can be motivated by an application that has 
requirements which are completely different from each of the ones that 
guided the design of each mapped scheme.

This is completely different from the assumption Alistair presents in [6]:

> the current SKOS Reference WD assumes that 
> the main reason for having a "parallel" vocabularies for 
> broader/narrower/related is to provide a convenient mechanism for 
> distinguishing links between concepts within the *same* scheme from 
> links between concepts in *different* schemes. 


This is actually why in the Primer [7] we have allowed for the use of 
skos:broader *between* concept schemes and the use of skos:broadMatch 
*within* concept schemes. Because these relations are of different 
(epistemological??) level!

Following this discussion, I would therefore make the following proposal 
to OPEN ISSUE-74 MappingPropertyConventions and consider to CLOSE it 
with the following proposal:

RESOLUTION: Even though it is acknowledged that SKOS semantic relation 
properties will, in most applications, link conceptual resources that 
stand within a same scheme, nothing in the SKOS model prevents their use 
for concepts from different schemes. Similarly, even though it is 
acknowledged that SKOS mapping relation properties will, in most 
applications, link conceptual resources coming from different concept 
schemes, nothing in the SKOS model prevents their use for concepts that 
stand within a same scheme.

Best,

Antoine


[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
[2] http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v01/i08/Doerr/
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo?action=recall&rev=5
[4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/39
[5] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes#item02
[7] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm continuing to forward contributions from Alistair, in relation to 
> [1] and to a mail that I will send next.
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0060.html
>
> ----
> [ISSUE-74] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/74
> MappingPropertyConventions (RAISED)
> [ISSUE-71] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
> ParallelMappingVocabulary (RAISED)
>
> Quick fix? No.
>
> [ISSUE-74] asks, what are the usage conventions for SKOS mapping
> properties and SKOS semantic relation properties? [ISSUE-71] asks, do we
> need the properties skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and
> skos:relatedMatch at all?
>
> These two issues go right to the heart of recommended usage for SKOS
> semantic relation and mapping properties. They are intimately related,
> as usage conventions for mapping properties depend on vocabulary
> available, and vice versa. I suggest we open these ASAP, to give time
> for preparation and due consideration of alternatives.
>
> To give a little background, the current SKOS Reference WD assumes that
> the main reason for having a "parallel" vocabularies for
> broader/narrower/related is to provide a convenient mechanism for
> distinguishing links between concepts within the *same* scheme from
> links between concepts in *different* schemes. This utility obviously
> depends on certain usage conventions being followed, i.e. that
> skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related are *only* used to link
> concepts in the same scheme, and that skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch
> and skos:relatedMatch are *only* used to link concepts in different
> schemes. To restate the point, if these usage conventions aren't
> followed, then the main raison d'etre for skos:broadMatch,
> skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch falls apart.
>
> Note that [ISSUE-73] and [ISSUE-75] are both dependent on [ISSUE-71].
> [ISSUE-73] asks, which other properties is skos:exactMatch disjoint
> with? [ISSUE-75] asks, which other properties can be involved in
> property chain inclusions with skos:exactMatch? Both of these questions
> depend on the SKOS vocabulary recommended for mapping.
>
> Note also that [ISSUE-83] is closely related to [ISSUE-71] and
> [ISSUE-74], because the proposed inference pattern depends on usage
> conventions which are not yet established. However, I suggest we
> consider [ISSUE-83] separately as a lower priority, because the proposed
> inference pattern can probably not be supported, regardless of our
> decision on [ISSUE-74].
>
> [ISSUE-73] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/73
> [ISSUE-75] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/75
> [ISSUE-83] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/83
>
>
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2008 22:33:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:52 UTC