Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data

On Jul 9, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
[snip]
> For the record, I am not trying to flame anyone, just trying to tease
> out usable alternatives,

Then I would suggest not claiming that the people you are disputing  
with are out of touch, unrealistic, fuddy-duddys.

> and the cases where we shouldn't use
> owl:sameAs in order to avoid conflicting with people who want to use
> OWL reasoners. I, and others, need a predicate, or set of predicates,
> that can be utilised in queries for accessing and reconciling data
> across the distributed semantic web database, where no one has
> compiled a self-contained OWL ontology

I don't see what self-containedness has to do with anything. If you  
never move beyond rdfs + sameAs, you likely won't have problems (at  
least in terms of complexity of reasoning; in terms of smushing  
annotations you will still have problems). But then again, you won't  
have problems with *any* aribtarily coined predicate with a simple  
alignment sematnics.

> for my particular purpose, or
> needs to if they are able to accept that non-universal queries are a
> valid mechanism for new knowledge creation.

I, again, don't know what you mean. AFAICT, I am a person who thinks  
that non-universal queries are a valid (?) mechanism for "new  
knowledge creation". So that can't be the heart of our dispute. Thus,  
it's not a helpful characterization. Perhaps you'd do better focus  
on  arguing your case and be a bit more tentative in your explication  
of other people's positions and states of mind?

> Sorry if it doesn't seem like that is going well so far!

FWIW, it gets under my skin to be attributed positions that I don't  
hold, even indirectly. Some technical issues with sameAs (annotation  
mashing) should up at the RDF level, some don't.

Cheers,
Bijan.