Mappings (was IVOAT)

[Frederic V. Hessman]

> 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.)
>
Then it worked!  The whole point was to provoke a response to an  
issue we needed to address not that we're getting down to brass  
tacks!  >:-)

> 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 Concentrate on generating clean versions of the  
> vocabularies. Change the mappings without needing to amend the skos  
> version of the vocabulary. Use different mappings in different  
> circumstances if this meets our needs.
>
Good point - hadn't thought of that.   Does this suggests, however,  
that we'll need a full matrix of RDF conversion files?


		A.rdf	B.rdf	C.rdf

A.rdf	N/A		A2B.rdf	A2C.rdf

B.rdf	B2A.rdf	N/A		B2C.rdf

C.rdf	C2A.rdf	C2B.rdf	N/A

Ugh!   Thank goodness I'm only really interested in tokens....
> 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.)
>
Sorry - my attention span for W3C documentation is obviously  
limited.    And I thought only young people had this problem.....

Rick