Re: ISSUE-74: MappingPropertyConventions

Hi Alistair,

Could you explain why I have the feeling that this issue you've raised 
goes a bit against [1] that we adopted in [2]?
the wiki page which is the "content" of [1] reads:
> This proposal considers that mapping links typically hold between 
> concepts from different concept schemes. It however does not forbid 
> the creation of mapping statements /within one single concept scheme/.

If we do not undo our resolution (and what I've written in the current 
draft primer in section 3.2 [3]) we have therefore a partial solution on 
your new issue.

About the second aspect (allowing skos:broader between concept from 
different schemes) the current Primer assumes that this is possible, 
especially in the case concept scheme extension.

About the last part of your issue, questioning the choice not to have a 
separate vocabulary for concept mapping relations and for semantic 
relations. I had proposed [4] before [1], and I've rarely seen so much 
consensus between SKOS list's people *against* something ;-)

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0083.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0116.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
[4] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalOne

> ISSUE-74: MappingPropertyConventions
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/74
>
> Raised by: Alistair Miles
> On product: SKOS
>
> Currently, given separate vocabularies for semantic relations (skos:broader,
> skos:narrower, skos:related etc.) and for concept mapping relations
> (skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch, skos:relatedMatch etc.), our assumption is
> that, *by convention*, the SKOS semantic relation properties are *only* used to
> state links between conceptual resources within the *same* concept scheme, and
> the SKOS concept mapping properties are *only* used to state links between
> conceptual resources in *different* concept schemes. 
>
> Is this usage convention appropriate, useful and viable? Are there circumstances
> where we would recommend *not* adhering to this convention?
>
> Note that it is difficult to formally state any integrity conditions which could
> be used to enforce this usage convention. No such integrity conditions are
> currently stated in the SKOS reference. Therefore, graphs such as:
>
> <A> skos:broader <B> ; skos:related <C> .
> <A> skos:inScheme <MyScheme> .
> <B> skos:inScheme <AnotherScheme> .
> <C> skos:inScheme <AnotherScheme> .
> <MyScheme> owl:differentFrom <AnotherScheme> . 
>
> ... and:
>
> <A> skos:broadMatch <B> ; skos:relatedMatch <C> .
> <A> skos:inScheme <MyScheme> .
> <B> skos:inScheme <MyScheme> .
> <C> skos:inScheme <MyScheme> .
>
> ... are both consistent with the SKOS data model. If we agree on the usage
> convention, can we live without any supporting integrity conditions?
>
> Note finally that if we chose *not* to have a separate vocabulary for concept
> mapping relations and for semantic relations, and we use only semantic relations
> to assert links between conceptual resources, this issue goes away. I.e. the
> resolution of this issue is dependant on the resolution of ISSUE-71.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 09:30:17 UTC