AW: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)

Hi Bernard,
 
thanks for your answer. I'm happy that I'm not the only one with a requirement for this quite ephemeral feature ;)
 
However, I'm not sure if your solution solves the problem I had in mind: My idea was to express a workflow status. If I got it right, your class NoMatch covers all entities without "Cells" (skos relationships) at a given point in time.  But it does not say "for this entity, I have checked intellectually that currently no such relationship can be established".
 
That said, your approach seems quite useful to get hold of the NoMatch entities  (and updates automatically if any mapping triple is inserted). I have no experience with reification - is it well supported in your software environment, and does the reification of all skos mapping triples perform well with large vocabularies? It would be very interesting to hear more about the "Terminology Alignment Environment", especially since we have plans to create mappings between different vocabs in the field of economics.
 
Cheers, Joachim


________________________________

	Von: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com] 
	Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2011 00:46
	An: Antoine Isaac
	Cc: Neubert Joachim; public-xg-lld
	Betreff: Re: WG: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)
	
	
	Minor correction and complement of information. 
	
	The quoted TAE project correct name is "Thesaurus Alignment Environment". 
	It's currently under development under the OPOCE umbrella, with the technical collaboration of INRIA and Mondeca. 
	There is no public visibility of this project at this point of time, no pointer, sorry ...
	
	
	2011/1/21 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
	

		Hello all
		
		In the Terminology Alignment Experiment, some applications indeed want to have this absence of mapping made explicit.
		We did it using a subclassing of alignment "Cell", which reifies a skos mapping (allowing to put metadata on it) between entity1 in source vocabulary and entity2 in the target vocabulary, in the following way.
		
		  <owl:Class rdf:about="#NoMatch">
		    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">No Match</rdfs:label>
		    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#Cell"/>
		    <rdfs:subClassOf>
		      <owl:Restriction>
		        <owl:cardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:cardinality>
		        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/heterogeneity/alignment#entity2"/>
		      </owl:Restriction>
		    </rdfs:subClassOf>
		  </owl:Class>
		
		The entity1 in a "NoMatch" cell has no entity2 match whatsoever.
		
		Maybe convoluted, but saying exactly waht it means.
		
		Bernard
		
		
		
		
		2011/1/20 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> 


			Hi Joachim,
			
			No, I've never seen this. It looks in fact a bit odd, as the aligned vocabularies may be extended one day so that a mapping can be found.
			
			Re. the representation, there must be ways to express this, using OWL class construction mechanisms (your instance of SWD would be in instance of the complement class to the class of reosurces that have a SKOS mapping property statement with a concept from STW). But I'd be tempted to wait for feedback to your questions on the other lists before trying it ;-)
			
			Cheers,
			
			Antoine 




				Hi,
				
				Maybe one of you - from the VocAlign Cluster, especially ;) - has dealt with this?
				
				Any hints are appreciated -
				
				Cheers, Joachim
				
				-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
				Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Neubert Joachim
				Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2011 14:11
				An: Semantic-web@w3.org
				Betreff: "zero relations" in dataset mappings (has no matching entity in)
				
				When matching and mapping two datasets, it is common that - on both sides - you find entities which don't have a matching entity on the other side.
				
				When that non-matching was verified intellectually, it could be valuable to report this fact - especially to keep track of "false positives"
				(e.g. matching labels, but different concepts in SKOS systems).
				Basically, this states a relation between an entity - e.g., a skos:Concept - and a set of entities - as defined e.g. by a skos:ConceptScheme or a void:Dataset.
				
				Are you aware of any pattern to express this in RDF?
				
				I consider coining something like
				
				  ext:noMatchingEntity rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:note .
				
				Since the date of the above mentioned verification should be reported, you could end up along the lines the following example
				
				  <http://d-nb.info/gnd/4125416-8>  ext:noMatchingEntity
				    [ rdf:value<http://zbw.eu/stw>  ;
				      dcterms:modified "2010-01-25"^^xsd:date ] .
				
				What do you think?
				
				Cheers, Joachim
				
				
				






		-- 
		Bernard Vatant
		Senior Consultant
		Vocabulary & Data Engineering
		Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
		Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
		----------------------------------------------------
		Mondeca
		3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
		Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
		Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
		----------------------------------------------------
		




	-- 
	Bernard Vatant
	Senior Consultant
	Vocabulary & Data Engineering
	Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
	Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
	----------------------------------------------------
	Mondeca
	3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
	Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
	Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
	----------------------------------------------------