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

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

From: Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:37:46 +0200
Message-ID: <5143869A.8060409@gmail.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
As I read your detailed answers and dug into web about the issue, I 
started to get how big deal is this. Seperation of description of a 
thing and thing's itself seems a better and easier to get solution. I 
don't think I will have a big problem for lodd but for further works I 
may have.

Here that I could find a compilation about this topic which might be 
useful: 
http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Overloading_OWL_sameAs


On 15-03-2013 21:56, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> There's another perspective, which is to to distinguish descriptions 
> of things from the things themselves. This works if you can agree on 
> identity of the thing but not necessarily on the way to describe it. 
> As an example, consider the class of cars manufactured by Nissan (call 
> it Cn). If you can agree on a URI for that class, you can each write 
> descriptions that have foaf:primaryTopic Cn.
>
> Depending on how careful you want to be, you can then use one or two 
> graphs. If you have your predicate relate descriptions then you can 
> use a single graph. For example  instead of having a predicate 
> hasNumberOfDoors that relates cars to a count of doors you can 
> have  describedHasNumberOfDoors that relates a description of a car to 
> a number with the interpretation that the author of the description 
> asserts that the car has 4 doors.
>
> Or, if you want to make assertions about the car, then use two graphs. 
> Each can make statements of the sort [isPrimaryTopicOf <description>] 
> hasNumberOfDoors 4. Since we are talking now about the cars, there 
> could be different perspectives, so to control that you put each 
> author's assertions in a different graph.
>
> I think this is a better strategy than using sameAs. There are a bunch 
> of problems with sameAs, not least of which is that often the 
> assertions are incorrect - they mean something different, Jim's post 
> gives a strategy to relate them without using sameAs, but I'd assert 
> that general ways of relating descriptions takes more than a couple of 
> relations, and should be an orthogonal problem. With the primaryTopic 
> method I suggest the relationship that matters for your application - 
> that the descriptions are pointing to the same thing, is explicit, and 
> doesn't need new predicates, though it does require some level of 
> coordination.
>
> Best,
> Alan
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com 
> <mailto:s.umutcan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     That made it clear, thanks again. I'm sure it will be helpful for
>     other developers either  in the future.
>
>     Umutcan
>
>
>     On 15-03-2013 20:29, Jeremy J Carroll 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 <mailto: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 :-)
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 20:38:18 UTC

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