Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
Good points!
A couple of comments.
Re dependent mappings: I agree. A restriction would be that the mapping
ontology be
also 'testing' when any of the interlinked vocabularies is 'testing.'
(A note from a previous email: there is very little support for the "testing"
status,
for example it does not apply for re-hosted entries.)
Re new versions of referred vocabularies in existing mappings: The mapper
component
(VINE) only displays and allows to map the *unversioned* URIs of the
corresponding
terms. In that sense, dependent mappings will continue to be (at least
syntactically)
valid. Of course, there would remain the question of its semantic validity upon
new
versions of the terms. Also there are other factors to consider regarding
potential
invalidity. For example, what should be the precise effect of deprecating a
particular term (see issue #233)? Are the dependent mappings to be deprecated as
well? (The latter is particularly tricky as you may notice: we could
automatically
deprecate the mappings *registered* at ORR; but what about the others out
there?)
In general, I think the trustfulness of the ORR is going to rely on these and
surely
many other factors, including aspects that perhaps we could not even capture in
the
underlying semantic infrastructure. Let's keep in mind that, beyond the
technical
capabilities per se, disagreements among human experts about particular pieces
of
semantic content is likely to (continue to) happen (at least in the foreseeable
future, IMHO).
Again, very good points. I'm cc-ing some others to foster further discussion.
Original comment by caru...@gmail.com
on 9 Apr 2010 at 10:32
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
steph_wa...@consolidated.net
on 9 Apr 2010 at 8:14