- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:21:37 -0400
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-ID: <515D8C71.6020500@openlinksw.com>
On 4/4/13 9:38 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 4/4/13 1:43 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >> Dropping Jim from cc in deference to him finishing his defense. >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org >> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote: >> >> On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: >> On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: >> >> If only owl:sameAs were used correctly... >> >> Well, I agree that is a problem, but don't draw the >> conclusion that >> there is something wrong with sameAs, just because >> people keep using >> it wrong. >> >> Agreed. And furthermore, don't draw the conclusion that >> someone has >> used owl:sameAs wrong just because you get garbage when >> you merge >> two graphs that individually worked just fine. Those two >> graphs may >> have been written assuming different sets of interpretations. >> >> In that case I would certainly conclude that they have used >> it wrong. >> Have you not been reading what Pat and I have been writing? >> >> >> I've read lots of what you and Pat have written. And I've >> learned a lot from it -- particularly in learning about ambiguity >> from Pat. And I'm in full agreement that owl:sameAs is *often* >> misused. >> >> But I don't believe that getting garbage when merging two graphs >> that individually worked fine *necessarily* indicates that >> owl:sameAs was misused -- even when it appears on the surface to >> be causing the >> problem. >> >> >> The word misuse is tricky here. If each individually acted without >> knowledge of the other, what you describe can certainly arise. >> However that doesn't change the fact that in the end someone is wrong. > What about the following with regards to the *tricky* situation: > > In the end something is wrong, and it could be any combination of: > > 1. data publisher > 2. data consumer > 3. tools used by data consumer -- which may or may not handle > reasoning and inference in a flexible manner e.g., leverage named > graph partitioning and conditional invocation of reasoner. > > David: > > The reality above still doesn't invalidate the fundamental point about > interpretation or RDF semantic though i.e., when a human or machine > attempts to make sense of the claims in the RDF model constrained > graph. An interpretation could be that that graph is structurally fine > but logically incoherent. Tweaked response, for clarity: What about the following with regards to the *tricky* situation: In the end something is wrong, and it could be any combination of: 1. data publisher 2. data consumer 3. tools used by data consumer -- which may or may not handle reasoning and inference in a flexible manner e.g., leverage named graph partitioning and conditional invocation of reasoner. David: The reality above still doesn't invalidate the fundamental point about interpretation or RDF *semantics* though i.e., when a human or machine attempts to make sense of the claims in an RDF model constrained graph -- an interpretation could be that the graph is structurally fine but logically incoherent. -- Regards, 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 14:21:58 UTC