W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2013

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] [ANN] Add your links to DBpedia workflow version 0.1 (this is also an RFC)

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1359485485.66515.YahooMailNeo@web122906.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Why not duck or why not just do it ? :-)

-1 to Hugh for making me explain my +1 to Kingsley.

OWL Class, Property and SKOS describe "particles" of meta data with the presumption of fine structure because everybody knows atoms have fine structure.  This is a case where going with "what everybody knows" can be dangerous because you can compare atoms, but you can't collect all the Higgs Bosons in one place, call it a center of mass*, and ignore the other bits.

DBpedia won't make a *new* mistake, but it might not please content providers in search of relationship validation.

So, +1, but be ready to duck.


* or Capital, Hub, Destination, Truth, the only important stuff, etc.     

 From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] [ANN] Add your links to DBpedia workflow    version 0.1 (this is also an RFC)
On 1/29/13 11:12 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Also, what about owl:equivalentClass ?
> and even owl:equivalentProperty ?
> If you are having skos:closeMatch, then these seem close enough.
> I have a feeling I should probably duck now.

Why not?



Kingsley Idehen    
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 18:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:28 UTC