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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:26:26 -0400
Message-ID: <514545F2.20302@dbooth.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Alan,

On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different
> graphs is an opinion

An opinion?  It is direct consequence of standard RDF Semantics!  Read 
the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
The RDF semantics is only defined for a *given* RDF graph.  It does not 
constrain a URI's resource identity across *different* graphs.  And here 
is a trivial existence proof that demonstrates that a URI does *not* 
necessarily denote the same resource in different graphs.

Graph 1 (assuming standard owl: prefix):

   <http://example/h> a <http://example/WhiteHorse> .
   <http://example/WhiteHorse>
        owl:disjointWith <http://example/BlackHorse> .

Graph 2:

   <http://example/h> a <http://example/BlackHorse> .
   <http://example/WhiteHorse>
        owl:disjointWith <http://example/BlackHorse> .

Each graph (by itself) has satisfying interpretations per standard RDF 
(and OWL) semantics.  And <http://example/h> denotes a resource in each 
graph.  But clearly it denotes a *different* resource in each graph.

> that does not concur with either the
> web specifications

Correct.  As I pointed out, the AWWW's statement that "a URI identifies 
one resource" is a good goal, but it does not concur with standard RDF 
semantics.

nor the goals they were built to satisfy. Caveat emptor.

Not true!  As I said before, I *agree* with the goal stated in the AWWW, 
that a URI should denote one resource!  But that does not change the 
reality: that a URI does *not* necessarily denote only one resource.
I also think world peace is a good goal, but it is *not* the reality.

If we're going to make the semantic web work, we need to keep the goals 
in mind while *also* recognizing the reality.  Facing reality should not 
be construed as dismissing the goals.  We cannot simply wish the reality 
away.  We need to do the engineering to make it work.

David
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2013 04:26:54 UTC

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