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

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

From: Rich Cooper <rich@englishlogickernel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:34:32 -0700
To: "'Jeremy J Carroll'" <jjc@syapse.com>, 'Umutcan ŞİMŞEK' <s.umutcan@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Kingsley Idehen'" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Message-ID: <9954B369CE12401A922C60B7A97A7C1D@Gateway>
While this discussion is on the subjective
evaluation of two individuals, there is another
situation which should be considered.  That is
when individual A makes a graph of her
observations, and individual B reviews A's graph,
critiques, evaluates, modifies or interprets A's
graph.  

For example, a manager often wants to have reviews
of every important document from every employee
performing certain duties.  A medical practitioner
is often reviewed by a medical auditor, and the
document produced is further reviewed by an
insurance agent to determine what is payable.
Then a government auditor might review the
insurance agent's opinions about the medical
practitioner's document as audited!  

So the number of layers, and the degree of fan-out
practiced by each reviewer, add to the complexity.
There could be a metagraph that links each layer
of triple graphs, and this could still be
mechanically generated in principle.  

It would be possible, of course, to practice
pairwise sets of the three graphs, and then stack
triple graphs for each layer of review, but that
gets rather messy rather fast.  

Thanks to XML document specifications, a process
this complex could still be audited mechanically
for syntactic errors or noncompliance.  But the
semantic interpretations, each subjective, might
use the triple graph sets you discussed.  

-Rich

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy J Carroll [mailto:jjc@syapse.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Umutcan ŞİMŞEK
Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right
way?

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 :-)
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 21:35:05 UTC

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