Mappings (was IVOAT)

[Ed Shaya]

I  agree with this.  There is no need to have everything in a single 
file.  The mappings can point to the relevant vocabularies, and there 
can be a top level RDF file that points to all of the mappings.
Ed

Alasdair Gray wrote:
>
> Hi Rick, All,
>
>  
>
> It is good to see Rick include his mappings from the UCD1 vocabulary 
> to the IVOAT. However, I do not agree with the way in which he has 
> linked the two vocabularies from a ideological point of view. (I am 
> saying nothing about whether the terms in the two vocabularies that he 
> has linked makes sense or not, I am concentrating on the way in which 
> they are linked.)
>
>  
>
> Rick has declared the mappings using the skos:related property and 
> embedded these within the skos version of the vocabulary.
>
>  
>
> First of all, I feel that the mappings between vocabularies should be 
> kept completely separate from the skos version of the vocabulary. This 
> allows us to
>
> 1.  Concentrate on generating clean versions of the vocabularies.
>
> 2.  Change the mappings without needing to amend the skos version of 
> the vocabulary.
>
> 3.  Use different mappings in different circumstances if this meets 
> our needs.
>
>  
>
> Second, I feel that the skos:related property is the wrong way to 
> relate concepts in different vocabularies. My interpretation of the 
> skos core, although it is not explicitly stated, is that the 
> properties skos:related, skos:broader, and skos:narrower, are for 
> defining relationships between concepts in a single vocabulary. We 
> should be looking to use the SKOS mapping vocabulary specification [1] 
> for this purpose. This provides several properties for mapping between 
> concepts in different vocabularies. (I am in the process of declaring 
> such mappings between the A&A Keywords and the AOIM vocabularies. Once 
> I have completed this I will send it around the list.)
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>
> Alasdair
>
>  
>
> 1.  http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/
>
>  
>
> Alasdair J G Gray
>
> Research Associate: Explicator Project
>
> http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk
>
> Computer Science, University of Glasgow
>
> 0141 330 6292
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Frederic V. Hessman
> Sent: 28 November 2007 16:55
> To: IVOA semantics
> Subject: IVOAT
>
>  
>
> The newest version of the IVOAT is now singular and it looks much nicer.
>
>  
>
> Haven't cleaned up all the minor problems found by the SKOS validator 
>
> (mostly from IAU93!) but I'm working on it as I find the time (ha!).
>
>  
>
> And, of course, I'm purposefully leaving in the Ae star/Be star/
>
> Herbig AeBe star  BT/NT cunundrum which no one has yet answered.
>
>  
>
> My version of the UCD1 docs also now includes a few linked references 
>
> to IVOAT tokens (included in the dictionary after the "prefLabel 
>
> (token)" banner), which makes for interesting comparisons of the two 
>
> vocabularies.
>
>  
>
> Enjoy!
>
>  
>
> Rick
>
>  
>
> http://www.astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de/~hessman/rdf/IVOAT/index.html
>
> http://www.astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de/~hessman/rdf/UCD1/index.html
>