Re: [SKOS] Closing ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary

Hi Sean,

>
> 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.

Very true! If ISSUE-36 had a strong solution (e.g. with a SKOS 
provenance vocabulary) we could have defined something like: "a mapping 
relationship is a paradigmatic relationship which is not contained in a 
concept scheme", allowing these users interested in the distinction 
between mapping and paradigmatic relationships to retrieve it via the 
containment. But that is not the case.

Antoine

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 10:49:37 UTC