- From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:31:18 +0100
- To: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Joachim, Actually we identified a similar use case at BnF. Context is an automated matching or alignment between 2 datasets, that has to be repeated on a regular basis (when 1 dataset or the other is updated). A manual quality check process is set up to check the quality of the alignement process. A human operator checks that 2 entities that could be automatically matched are actually different. He wants to record this fact so that in future matchings the manual work doesn't have to be done again. We plan to use owl:differentFrom to express that those 2 entities are different. It seems to me that this case relates to a relationship between two URIs in 2 different datasets, rather than a skos:note on one of the (un)matched concepts. Emmanuelle On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------- >
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 14:31:51 UTC