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 17:24:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=SusWFeGCVk8DRCe+Lm=Tjc4H-XnyZHauPrb2Td6GG_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Indeed, it even frees you up to determine what semantics you need in that
context. A property chain is pretty simple to write...

Jim


On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  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> 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
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> 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
>
>
>
>


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

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 21:25:29 UTC

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