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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:16:58 -0400
Message-ID: <51438FCA.5070606@openlinksw.com>
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
On 3/15/13 3:18 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> 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:
>
> prov:specializationOf
> IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf
>
> 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.
>
> prov:alternateOf
> IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
>
> 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.

Your relation semantics can go in a specific named graph ("context 
lenses" so to speak). You then use these named graph as the source of 
the inference rules that are conditionally invoked for your desired 
world-view.

Kingsley
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com 
> <mailto: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
>     <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 :-)
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-4436
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
> http://tw.rpi.edu


-- 

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







Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 21:17:21 UTC

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