- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:43:14 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
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. Antoine 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. Sean ** 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 sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 10:42:43 UTC