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

[SKOS] Closing ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:42:08 +0100
Message-ID: <47BB2300.8010702@few.vu.nl>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Dear all,

Trying to decompose issues, as Sean requested.
I will actually not try to decompose the discussion in [1] because it is 
a whole about ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74.

Shortly, [1] tries to show that mapping relationships and standard 
(paradigmatic) relationships are different. They result from different 
activities, and are situated on a different level with respect to 
authority and concept scheme design.

Assuming this understanding is correct, this I propose the following 
resolution for ISSUE-71:

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.

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0062.html


>
> 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 Tuesday, 19 February 2008 18:42:13 UTC

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