From 79b7f3ebc4939ddd32a4f53cc626f0e8427e0127 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nico Matentzoglu Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:49:49 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Update mapping-predicates.md --- src/docs/mapping-predicates.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/docs/mapping-predicates.md b/src/docs/mapping-predicates.md index 365c989c..7cbf66b8 100644 --- a/src/docs/mapping-predicates.md +++ b/src/docs/mapping-predicates.md @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ The **precision** is simply: is the mapping `exact`, `close`, `broad`, `narrow` - `exact`: The two terms are intended to refer to the same thing. For example, both the subject and the object identifiers refer to the concept of [Gala cultivar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gala_(apple)). - `close`: The two terms are intended to refer to roughly the same thing, but not quite. This is a hazy category and should be avoided in practice, because when taken too literally, most mappings could be interpreted as close mappings. This is not the point of creating mappings, if their intention is to be useful (see "use case" considerations later in this document). An example of a `close` mapping is one between the "heart" concept in a database of anatomical entities for biological research on chimpanzees and the "human heart" in an electronic health record for humans. -- `broad`: The object refers to a broader term. For example, "human heart" in an electronic health record refers to "heart" in a general anatomy ontology that covers all species, such as Uberon. Another example is "Gala (cultivar)" in one ontology or database to "Apple (cultivar)" in another: the Apple (cultivar) has a broader meaning then "Gala (cultivar)". For a good mapping, it is advisable that "broad" and "narrow" are applied a bit more strictly than is technically permitted by the SKOS specification: both the subject and the object should belong to the same **category**. For example, you should use broad (or narrow) only if both the subject and the object are "cultivars" (in the above example). -- `narrow`: The object refers to a narrower term. For example "Apple (cultivar)" is a narrow match to "Gala (cultivar)". Think of it as the opposite of "broad". `broad` and `narrow` are so-called inverse categories: If "Gala (cultivar)" is a `broad` match to "Apple (cultivar)", then "Apple (cultivar)" is a `narrow` match to "Gala (cultivar)"! One **note of caution**: `narrow` matches generally have less useful applications then `broad` ones. For example, if we want to _group_ subject entities in a database under an ontology to make them queryable in a knowledge graph, only `broad` matches to the ontology can be retrieved. For example, if we map "Gala (cultivar)" in a database to "Apple (cultivar)" in an ontology, and we wish to write a semantic query to obtain all records that are about "Apple (cultivar)" according to the ontology, we obtain "Gala (cultivar)". This is not true the other way around: if the ontology term is _more_ specific then the database term, it can't be used to group the database data. +- `broad`: The object is conceptually broader than the subject. For example, "human heart" in an electronic health record refers to "heart" in a general anatomy ontology that covers all species, such as Uberon. Another example is "Gala (cultivar)" in one ontology or database to "Apple (cultivar)" in another: the Apple (cultivar) has a broader meaning then "Gala (cultivar)". For a good mapping, it is advisable that "broad" and "narrow" are applied a bit more strictly than is technically permitted by the SKOS specification: both the subject and the object should belong to the same **category**. For example, you should use broad (or narrow) only if both the subject and the object are "cultivars" (in the above example). +- `narrow`: The object is conceptually narrower than the subject. For example "Apple (cultivar)" is a narrow match to "Gala (cultivar)". Think of it as the opposite of "broad". `broad` and `narrow` are so-called inverse categories: If "Gala (cultivar)" is a `broad` match to "Apple (cultivar)", then "Apple (cultivar)" is a `narrow` match to "Gala (cultivar)"! One **note of caution**: `narrow` matches generally have less useful applications then `broad` ones. For example, if we want to _group_ subject entities in a database under an ontology to make them queryable in a knowledge graph, only `broad` matches to the ontology can be retrieved. For example, if we map "Gala (cultivar)" in a database to "Apple (cultivar)" in an ontology, and we wish to write a semantic query to obtain all records that are about "Apple (cultivar)" according to the ontology, we obtain "Gala (cultivar)". This is not true the other way around: if the ontology term is _more_ specific then the database term, it can't be used to group the database data. - `related`: The subject refers to an analogous concept of a different category. For example "Apple" and "Apple tree" are considered `related` matches, but not `exact` matches, as "Apple" is of the "fruit" category, and "Apple tree" of the "tree" category. Other examples include: "disease" and "phenotype", "chemical" and "chemical exposure", "car" and "car manufacturing process". In general, `related` mappings should be reserved for "direct analogues". For example, we should not try to map to `related` and `broad` categories at the same time, like, for example, "Gala (cultivar)" to "Apple tree". This causes a huge amount of proliferation of very "low value" mappings (see use case section later).