Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

Richard

Apologies for missing the main point in your previous message, using
skos:closeMatch and not owl:sameAs anymore :(
You are absolutely right about the absence of semantic collapse in this
case.

Bernard

2009/11/13 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

> Bernard,
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2009, at 14:24, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
>> If you confuse your concept A for the thing X and X itself, maybe you can
>> live inside your system with this. No real conflict, just superposition of
>> different "views" of the same referent, a direct and an indirect one. A
>> bit
>> weird, but no real formal inconsistency so far, if the respective
>> ontologies
>> you use don't forbid it by assertions such as skos:Concept
>> owl:disjointWith
>> foaf:Person.
>>
>
> Right. If I do this locally, there should be no harm.
>
>
>  But if I confuse also my concept B with the same thing X, and
>> a third party puts all that together out of context, it will merge A and
>> B,
>> and from there clear inconsistencies will appear, like two different
>> valuse
>> of creation date, or two different values of dcterms:publisher.
>>
>
> This argument holds against the use of owl:sameAs, but not against the use
> of skos:closeMatch, which will not result in a "merge" of A and B; it will
> only result in the conclusion that the "middle" resource X is both a
> skos:Concept and a, say, foaf:Person.
>
>
>  If the
>> supporting ontology says that dcterms:publisher has max cardinality 1, the
>> two publishers will be inferred to be the same, merging some of their
>> attributes, and so on. That's what I meant, Richard, by "trigger a
>> semantic
>> collapse".
>>
>
> Again, does not apply to skos:closeMatch. Where is the "semantic collapse"
> you predicted in that case?
>
>
>  If all URIs are ambiguous as Pat holds it, and I tend to agree, and
>> default
>> general mechanisms able to resolve this ambiguity so far, we're better be
>> cautious, given the current dumbness of our systems and keep the ambiguity
>> as limited as possible. Which means, when you see clearly undesirable
>> consequences of overloading, don't do it.
>>
>
> I fully agree with the sentence: When you see undesirable consequences of
> overloading, don't do it. But I do not see those consequences for the use of
> skos:closeMatch. Where are they?
>
> Richard




-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
----------------------------------------------------