- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:34:21 +0100
- To: "'Butler, Mark'" <mark-h.butler@hp.com>, "(www-rdf-dspace@w3.org)" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
- Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Mark,
> Here is the use case we had in SIMILE:
>
> I have some Artstor data that uses the term "cadavers" (which
> is a preferred
> term in the Artstor data), and I want to map onto the LOC TGM
> thesaurus. In
> LOC TGM, cadavers is an alternative term for both "dead
> animals" and "dead
> persons". Therefore, my guess is LOC decided that the term
> "cadavers" was
> ambiguous, so they decided to encourage cataloguers to use
> the two less
> ambiguous terms. However here the concept corresponding to cadaver is
> actually the union of the concepts that have "dead animals" and "dead
> persons" as their primary terms.
So taking this as an example, using the following hypothetical RDF
descriptions of the concepts involved ...
<skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="a">
<skos:prefLabel>Cadavers</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="Artstor"/>
</skos:Concept>
<skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="b">
<skos:prefLabel>Dead animals</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:altLabel>Cadavers</skos:altLabel>
<skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="LOCTGM"/>
</skos:Concept>
<skos:Concept rdf:nodeID="c">
<skos:prefLabel>Dead persons</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:altLabel>Cadavers</skos:altLabel>
<skos:inScheme rdf:nodeID="LOCTGM"/>
</skos:Concept>
... using the most recent version of the SKOS-Mapping schema [1][2] the
Artstor -> LOCTGM mapping would be expressed as ...
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="a">
<skos-map:exactMatch>
<skos-map:OR>
<skos-map:memberList rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="b"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="c"/>
</skos-map:memberList>
</skos-map:OR>
</skos-map:exactMatch>
</rdf:Description>
... and the LOCTGM -> Artstor mapping would be expressed as ...
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="b">
<skos-map:broadMatch rdf:nodeID="a"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="c">
<skos-map:broadMatch rdf:nodeID="a"/>
</rdf:Description>
This is of course a semantic mapping, and needs a person to identify it.
Some sort of mapping tool is what I had in mind as a UI, to help a user
define semantic mappings (possibly suggested by lexical mappings).
As a totally hypothetical example, I was thinking that lexical mappings
could be expressed as in e.g. ....
<test:AltToPrefLabelMatch>
<test:source rdf:nodeID="b"/>
<test:target rdf:nodeID="a"/>
<test:stringMatch>Cadaver</skos-map:stringMatch>
</test:AltToPrefLabelMapping>
I would love to see another round of development on the SKOS-Mapping schema
(I think it needs it), with some proper test cases to try it out. I don't
think we have this effort left in SWAD-E though, something to think of for
the future :).
Yours,
Alistair.
[1] http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/2003/11/21-skos-mapping
[2] http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/SWAD/deliverables/8.4.html
---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 12:34:54 UTC