- From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:35:10 +0100
- To: Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 28 Aug 2011, at 23:16, Tom Baker wrote: > 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. "Equivalences" is best avoided (IMO): many things which are aligned are not in fact equivalent. -Jodi > > 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 07:35:56 UTC