W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:08:03 -0500
Message-ID: <45C74853.60705@musc.edu>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

> Please review slides 31-34 in [1] for a precise example of the 
> technique I am referring to. There is a link to working code that 
> implements the example within lsw [2]
O.K. Let us work on the provided example.  Assume that you found a 
VitaminSourceDemoThing that might interest me. How are you going to tell 
me, say something like: "Hey, Xiaoshu, check this out - 
http://www.example.org/NM_013987_XML".  What am I supposed to do next? 

I was wrong using the carrot example.  But what I was trying to say is 
that the semantics of owl:hasValue restriction should have nothing to do 
with the URI's composition.  Take the example provided, that all 
vs:vitaminSourceDemoThing's vs:getMethod must has value of a 
"vs:vitaminSourceDemoMethod".  Now, if I make the following assertion that

http://foo.com/foo a vs:vitaminSourceDemoThing ;
                                   vs:getMethod http://bar.com/#bar .

An RDF engine should infer that

"http://bar.com/#bar" owl:sameAs vs:vitaminSourceDemoMethod

But it does not mean that the engine should dereference dereference the 
URI of vs:vitaminSourceDemoMethod instead of http://bar.com/#bar, am I 
right? Because there might be some other interesting knowledge at 
"http://bar.com/#bar" that is not available at vs:vitaminSourceDemoMethod.

If using an ontology to decide what to dereference, an engine must have 
parse the resource twice.  First, using the ontology to decide how to 
get a "complete" information set. Second, to infer it to the knowledge 
set and do some useful thing.  The semantics are different. If you mixed 
them up together in the same system, you throw yourself in an endless 
loop.  For instance, I am curious, how should I dereference the  
vs:vitaminSourceDemoMethod, how do I decide the vs:getMethod of this 
URI? Don't you see where it is going?

Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 15:08:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:29 UTC