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

Re: [SKOS] Closing ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:43:14 +0000
Message-Id: <0F1C3BFC-85E4-49FC-BE79-4E43F0371E02@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On 19 Feb 2008, at 18:42, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> 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.


Thanks for the restatement -- this helped me in understanding the  
situation. I support the proposed resolution and the use of a  
parallel mapping vocabulary as stated above. I believe the somewhat  
"weak" resolution to ISSUE-36, ConceptSchemeContainment (**) also  
lends weight to the argument for the use of a parallel mapping  
vocabulary. Without it, it may be unclear in certain situations  
whether a relationship is intended to be a mapping or standard  
(paradigmatic) relationship.


** Note that the use of the term "weak" is not intended in a  
pejorative sense here, or as a criticism of the resolution.

Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 10:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:48 UTC