- From: Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0400
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:34:58PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Fair enough. > Note that the confusion between "alignment" and "ontology mapping" is quite understandable: as soon as you include in it similarity between individuals (owl:sameAs or softer), then "ontology mapping" may cover the entire realm of semantic alignment, in the RDF(S)/OWL world. > Note that as an ontology matching researcher, I am using the terminology from that area: > - matching = the process of establishing connections (manually or using an automatized technique) > - mapping = an individual correspondence (e.g., between class A and class B) > - alignment = a set of mappings between two datasets/ontologies > > So I'd propose to replace > "which provides methods for mapping equivalences across vocabularies ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping ontology mapping])" > by > "which provides elements to represent alignments across vocabularies ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping ontology mappings])" I like "represent alignments" better than "mapping equivalences"; actually, the previous version said "equivalencies" -- a word which AFAICT does not exist. By "elements", do you mean "properties" (e.g., owl:sameAs)? Do we feel okay about calling owl:sameAs an "element" -- something one wouldn't say at a Semantic Web conference but is arguably more consistent with our use of "element set"? If we decide against using "property" because we do not define it in the report as a synonym for "elements" (though perhaps it should be), then we would need to fix a reference to "standard library properties and vocabularies". > But that's a mere suggestion. Having been confused by all that years ago (and > still being quite a bit) I understand that you may be unconvinced. Even > though one big plus of my wording is that it's more compatible with the > section in the OWL specs, which includes "different from" links -- thus quite > far from "equivalences" (an alignment can indeed also include mappings that > denote dissimilarity...). Good point! Tom
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 07:30:59 UTC