[SKOS] Proposal ISSUE 47 MappingProvenanceInformation

Dear all,

I would like to make the following proposal for ISSUE-47 

Proposal: considering that ISSUE-71 is CLOSEd by a resolution that 
adopts a mapping vocabulary that parallels the SKOS paradigmatic 
relation vocabulary (following e.g. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0062.html), we 
CLOSE ISSUE-47 by adopting the Solution 1 from 

My motivation is quite simple: if we go for the reification of mapping 
relationships (the solution 2 of [1]), then we are not really parralel. 
The way mapping relationship and paradigmatic ones would be represented 
would actually be very different!

Further, I truly believe that solution 2 is very technical and fits more 
the requirements of the ontology alignment community. For more general 
SKOs purposes, it may be enough to consider mappings on a set basis. For 
instance, Alasdair, in the mail below, had not thought about the 
"individual provenance" requirement at a first glance. I would expect 
this requirement to be very rare in SKOS use cases.



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0017.html
> Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi Margherita (I cc your mail to the SWD list),
>> (And sorry Guus I promise this will be my only interfering with the 
>> issue you've just seized from me ;-)
>>> -------- Message d'origine--------
>>> De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Sini, Margherita 
>>> (KCEW)
>>> Date: mar. 05/02/2008 18:04
>>> : public-esw-thes@w3.org
>>> Objet : ISSUE 47 MappingProvenanceInformation
>>> ISSUE just opened after today conference.
>>> I would mention is very important for us because based on different 
>>> needs we
>>> may have different mappings.
>> That's indeed a very important motivation for such a requirement.
> We believe this will also be true for the astronomy situation.
>>> I propose to assign a creator or owner to the mapping so to idenfity 
>>> the
>>> provenance. and again by reusing if possible something already 
>>> existing e.g.
>>> dc:author or dc:creator (forgot which one is).
>>> Regards
>>> Margherita
>> The problem is that the issue may refer to indvidual "mapping 
>> statements", e.g. [ex1:cat skos:exactMatch ex2:chat].
>> So applying your solution is technically feasible, but would require 
>> RDF reification. We are here in a situation very similar to ISSUE-36 
>> regarding containment of semantic relationships in concept schemes.
>> And since RDF reification is not popular, we cannot go for this 
>> solution.
> We had been thinking of this only on a set of mappings level so far, 
> but you make a valid point that it could be on an individual mapping 
> basis.
> Alasdair
>> Indeed, two solutions are possible:
>> 1. Creating a kind of "mapping scheme", that could be treated as an 
>> RDF named graph. Knowing that a specific MappingScheme object has for 
>> instace ex:margherita as dc:creator and that it is the context in 
>> which the mapping [ex1:cat skos:exactMatch ex2:chat] was asserted, 
>> then you could by using appropriate SPARQL queries retrieve your 
>> provenance information. This is very similar to the solution we 
>> accepted for ISSUE-36 [1]
>> 2. Creating a kind of "reification" for the mapping, similar to the 
>> pattern Alistair used for ISSUE-26 [2]
>> Instead of [ex1:cat skos:exactMatch ex2:chat] (or complementary to 
>> it) we would assert the following triple
>> _:b1 rdf:type MappingRelation;
>>  skos:mappedConcept1 ex1:cat;
>>  skos:mappedConcept2 ex2:chat;
>>  skos:mappingRelationType skos:exactMatch;
>>  dc:creator ex:margherita.
>> This is actually what is done in current ontology alignment 
>> community, e.g. the format used for the OAEI evaluation campaigns [3, 
>> 4-p5], which introduces mapping "cells". These cells are gathered in 
>> "alignments" using simple RDF statements. Conitnueing my fictional 
>> SKOS namespace (but everything can be represented using the 
>> vocabulary from [3])
>> ex:myMappingScheme rdf:type skos:MappingScheme;
>>  skos:includesMapping _:b1.
>> Notice that the two solutions have their strong and weak points:
>> - 1 is closer to the way SKOS paradigmatic relationships are 
>> expressed, but is less flexible in terms of representation: things 
>> will become messy if "mapping schemes" aggregate mappings from 
>> various origins
>> - 2 is more powerful at representing provenance information (you can 
>> distinguish between the creator of the "mapping scheme" and the 
>> creator of each mapping statement), but has clearly a technical 
>> flavor (far from the way SKOS models its semantic relationships)
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L9287
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2914
>> [3] http://oaei.inrialpes.fr/2007/
>> [4] http://gforge.inria.fr/docman/view.php/117/251/align.pdf

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2008 23:54:31 UTC