UC3 - Semantic alignment

[gwemon]

Semantic alignment

Create mappings between terminologies using established relationships. Record and preserve the mappings.

Corresponding user stories

• Soil Data manager - Normalize data - Achievement of a standard
• Vocabulary manager - Select the right URI for "nitrogen" - Better data integration and interoperability
• Bio-loggingData - NormalizeDataMeasurements - Interoperability
• Terminology provider - access agreed mappings - gain efficiency in data exchange
• Data manager - interchange between BODC PUV P01 and CF standard names - deliver SeaDataNet CF-NetCDF
• Researcher- find long time series data - efficient semantic search across multiple vocabularies

Requirements identified in the spreadsheet (and open for discussion)

• [x] Requires concepts that have persistent resolvable URIs
• [x] Requires the terminology be hosted by a trustworthy semantic repository
• [x] Requires terminologies based on simple atomic terms (e.g. used to make more complex compound terms)
• [x] Requires (agreement of) top-level, domain-independent categorization scheme/ontology
• [ ] Requires that the terminology includes semantic relations between concepts
• [x] Requires mappings between terminologies
• [x] Requires that the provenance and status metadata of mappings between concepts be accessible.
• [ ] Requires coarse-grained terminologies for observable properties
• [ ] Requires fine-grained terminologies for observable properties
• [x] Requires a long-term commitment to the terminology content governance
• [ ] Requires a community-endorsed terminology
• [ ] Requires the terminology to be discoverable (not just technically but also e.g. listed in relevant community portals or discoverable via search engines)
• [ ] Requires that the terminology supports multilingual terms
• [ ] Requires common minimum metadata describing the terminology
• [ ] Requires definitions of the individual terms within a terminology
• [ ] Requires that any underlying model used by the terminology be described and accessible
• [ ] Requires the provenance properties of individual terms to be documented in a standardized way
• [ ] Requires examples of usage of the terminology to be available and documented
• [ ] Requires the terminology to be accessible programmatically
• [ ] Requires deprecated term status and deprecation policy
• [ ] Requires tools supporting annotation using the terminologies
• [ ] Requires tools validating the applied terms against terminologies
• [ ] Requires tools for mapping
• [ ] Requires a mean to manage alternative notations

last updated: 2020-09-21

[gwemon]

Proposing as a starter: R1: the concepts to be mapped must be accessible using URLs which are Globally Unique, Persistent and Resolvable Identifiers R2: the relationship terms to be used in the mapping between terminologies are identified using Globally Unique, Persistent and Resolvable Identifiers R3: there is a system in place to serve, manage, preserve and reference the mappings.

[mabablue]

R4: the model/logic on which the terminology is based is documented R5: the granularity of the terminologies are compatible (?) R6: there is a common formal model in place (on reflection I am not sure this is needed for this UC) R7: real-life examples are available to validate the mappings

[cpichot]

Sorry for joining late, I thought the meeting was at 9. I have two questions:

• may we have to indicate that the concept alignments may be not only of one-to-one type but also between groups of concepts. This is in relation with the granularity issue
• R7: is it "...examples to validate..." OR "...examples that validate..." Christian

[gwemon]

Requirements transferred to spreadsheet for discussion tomorrow.

[gwemon]

Requirements identified in the spreadsheet (and open for discussion)

• [x] Requires concepts that have persistent resolvable URIs
• [x] Requires terminologies managed in a semantic repository
• [x] Requires terminologies based on simple atomic terms
• [x] Requires (agreement of) top-level, domain-independent categorization scheme/ontology
• [ ] Requires semantic relations between concepts
• [x] Requires mappings between terminologies
• [x] Requires that the provenance of mapping properties be trusted
• [ ] Requires terminologies with coarse granularity
• [ ] Requires terminologies with fine granularity
• [x] Requires a long-term commitment governance setup
• [ ] Requires an active community supporting the terminology
• [x] Requires a reliable technical infrastructure
• [ ] Requires input from domain experts
• [ ] Requires that the terminology be part of federated community specific and/or cross-domain portals
• [ ] Requires that the terminology supports multilingual terms
• [ ] Requires multilingual editorial team or multilingual community effort
• [ ] Requires terminologies published as Linked Data
• [ ] Requires the terminology to use a common minimum metadata schema to describe semantic artefacts and their content
• [ ] Requires definitions of the concepts within a terminology
• [ ] Requires used data models to be explicit and accessible
• [ ] Requires the terminology to track the provenance of individual terms

[kitchenprinzessin3880]

one sub-requirement is that the storing the relations (mappings).

[gwemon]

@kitchenprinzessin3880 agree and maybe we could add this to the existing "Requires mappings between terminologies" by renaming this to "Requires access to mappings between terminologies"?

[kitchenprinzessin3880]

@kitchenprinzessin3880 agree and maybe we could add this to the existing "Requires mappings between terminologies" by renaming this to "Requires access to mappings between terminologies"?

sounds good as it implies both storage and access.

[SirkoS]

• [x] Requires terminologies managed in a semantic repository

The current reading of this requirement as per Google sheet is

Requires the terminology is hosted and served by (and synchronized across) one or more reliable repositories

Technically, I don't think this is needed for having a semantic alignment. The use case only calls for the mappings to be available. This does not imply that the (legacy) terminologies themselves still are. I agree that having the terminology as a whole still available is helpful in assessing the mapping, but strictly speaking it's not necessary. In particular, with respect to the requirement "Requires access to mappings between terminologies" which implies the availability of the mappings independent of the terminology itself.

~~To give an example: One use of a semantic alignment is the "updating" of annotations to another, new terminology. So all I have to start with is maybe a dataset and a bunch of IDs from the old terminology (not the whole terminology!). In order to translate, I just need to use the mapping and replace each of the old IDs with one from the new terminology. No access to the old terminology as a whole is needed.~~

Edit: I misread the description. For actually creating the alignment you need access to the terminology as a whole, so the above comment becomes invalid.

[SirkoS]

^{[automated message]} Updated top entry of this issue on 2020-07-11

[SirkoS]

Requires a long-term commitment governance setup

In the context of this use case, this refers only to the provider of the mapping. If this is separate from the terminologies involved, those terminologies just need to be available, but there doesnt need to be a governance scheme in place (in my opinion). Only if the mapping is stored as part of the terminology, that terminology needs a governance setup. _{I dont want to argue for rephrasing the requirement. Consider this a footnote in the requirement matrix.}

Requires input from domain experts

Dont we need them to create meaningful mappings in the first place? In my personal experience I often need to ask an expert how two terms/concepts are related ...

Requires metadata indicating mapping type (automated/manual) and validity (i.e. status)

This is somewhat in between, but should be the output of the creation of such a mapping (subject of this use case).

Requires deprecated term status and deprecation policy

Somewhat debatable, but this should be taken into consideration in the alignment process, if available.

Requires alternative syntax (like alternative notation e.g. chemical formula, abbreviations) Requires synonym management

Not strictly needed, but certainly helpful.

[SirkoS]

^{[automated message]} Updated top entry of this issue on 2020-09-21