- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:30:54 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On 27/1/09 15:20, Antoine Isaac wrote: > > Hi, > > To me the most important point in Tom's argument was the "not consider > herself qualified". So this can be at first sight related to provenance. > But fundamentally, it's a matter of authority, though maybe not in the > usual Semantic Web sense [1] > Actually I'd like to have SKOS send the message that the mapping links > are just more dubious to re-use than the standard relationships. The > latter are part of the *definition* of the concept and supposed to be > usable by any application that will access the concept scheme, while the > former are not. > Just have a look at the results of automatic mapping tools. Or even what > is produced humans trying to build a mapping themselves, or fixing such > an automatic mapping. My experience is that this is hugely error-prone. > And our fate is that many mappings will be produced by automatic tools > or by non-expert people [2] > > So at some point I expect users will just want to know that something > was said, which is reliable from a conceptual perspective. And that's > essentially quite distinct from the problem of who said what. Antoine > Isaac can publish nice SKOS conversion of existing validated schemes he > got from his library, and crap mapping links he's just using for a demo. There's plenty of terribly messy data in the library world. I'm wary of putting too much quality / authority / provenance work onto something as simple as a selection between two RDF properties. cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:31:35 UTC