W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2013

Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right way?

From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:18:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=Str_nRZRA9zufiUndYF5pvXo2MzKfzAb4BstJW_rZHXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Cc: Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
This is a useful solution, but doesn't address issues that arise when Gu or
Gj contain owl:sameAs triples, but the authors of those graphs didn't
actually mean the full OWL semantics by it. In the provenance WG, we have
come up with two relations that are sameAs-like, but no not have the full
owl:sameAs semantics:


An entity that is a specialization of another shares all aspects of the
latter, and additionally presents more specific aspects of the same thing
as the latter. In particular, the lifetime of the entity being specialized
contains that of any specialization. Examples of aspects include a time
period, an abstraction, and a context associated with the entity.


Two alternate entities present aspects of the same thing. These aspects may
be the same or different, and the alternate entities may or may not overlap
in time.

I think that these are more appropriate for Linked Data applications, since
they are "looser" semantically, than owl:sameAs.


On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:

> I did not find this a rookie question at all.
> This seems to get to the heart of some of the real difficult issues in
> Semantic Web.
> My perspective is different from yours, and a resource description that I
> author is a description of the resource from my perspective; a resource
> description that you author is a description from your perspective.
> If I have some detailed application that depends in some subtle way on my
> description, I may want to ignore your version; on the other hand, a third
> party might want to use both of our points of view.
> One way of tacking this problem is to have three graphs for this case:
> Gj, Gu, G=
> Gj contains triples describing my point of view
> Gu contains triples describing your point of view
> G= contains the owl:sameAs triples
> Then, in some application contexts, we use Gj, sometimes Gu, and sometimes
> all three.
> Jeremy
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick answer : )
> >
> > So this issue is that subjective for contexts which allows to use
> owl:sameAs to link resources  if they are not semantically even a little
> bit related in real world?
> >
> > Sorry if I'm asking too basic questions. I'm still a rookie at this :D
> >
> > Umutcan
> >
> >
> > On 15-03-2013 19:38, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >> On 3/15/13 1:05 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK wrote:
> >>> My question is, does LODD use owl:sameAs properly? For instance, are
> those two resources, dbpedia:Metamizole and drugbank:DB04817 (code for
> Metamizole), really identical? Or am I getting the word "property" in the
> paper wrong?
> >> The question is always about: do those URIs denote the same thing? Put
> differently, do the two URIs have a common referent?
> >>
> >> ## Turtle ##
> >>
> >> <#i> owl:sameAs <#you>.
> >>
> >> ## End ##
> >>
> >> That's a relation in the form of a 3-tuple based statement that carries
> entailment consequences for a reasoner that understand the relation
> semantics. Through some "context lenses" the statement above could be
> accurate, in others totally inaccurate.
> >>
> >> Conclusion, beauty lies eternally in the eyes of the beholder :-)
> >>
> >
> >

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 19:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:01 UTC