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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:18:25 -0400
Message-ID: <5150A301.2050402@dbooth.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, 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 Pat,

On 03/25/2013 01:28 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
 >> Given n interpretations and n graphs, it is perfectly valid to use
>> the RDF Semantics to determine the truth-values of each of those n
>> graphs relative to those n interpretations, without in any way
>> violating the spec.
>
> Well, yes, the spec does not actually say anything about what anyone
> *does*. So there is no law against doing this, so to speak.

Thank you!

> But
> calling it "valid" is a stretch. The RDF semantic specification is
> intended to define a model theory, to be used to specify a semantics
> in the way conventionally used throughout formal logic, and as
> described in many textbooks. What you are suggesting here is not
> using the specification in this way, as a model theory, so it is a
> mis-use of the specification. For example, using your ideas, none of
> the inference rules provided in the 2004 specification would be
> valid.
>
> Clearly, however, you are immune to explanations,

Well, there's the pot calling the kettle black!  :)

> so I think I will
> give up at this point. If you wish to misuse the specifications in
> pursuit (a vain pursuit, I will add) of some half-baked fantasy of
> your own, I guess there is nothing I or anyone else can do to stop
> you.

Fantasy?  [Musing: "There exists a fantasy world in which each URI 
denotes the same resource in *every* RDF graph, and although multiple 
interpretations are permitted, which would map the same URI to different 
resources, discussing more than one interpretation at a time is strictly 
forbidden . . . ."]

It would be absurd to claim that determining the truth-values of both 
I1(G1) and I2(G2), where I1 and I2 are different interpretations and G1 
and G2 are different graphs, somehow constitutes a "misuse" of the RDF 
Semantics spec.

Look, *you* may not like using the RDF Semantics spec this way.  But I 
think you are selling your work short by discouraging others from doing 
so.  The spec is an excellent piece of work and there is significant 
value in taking a birds-eye view of it and recognizing that it can be 
used in more real-life ways than you initially expected.

The fact that the RDF Semantics spec was written in the style of model 
theory is all fine and dandy.  I think it works pretty well.  But it is 
**completely irrelevant** to the spec's purpose.  The spec could just as 
well have been written in any other sufficiently precise style -- 
denotational semantics, operational semantics, whatever -- and still 
serve the exact same purpose: to define a standard way of determining 
the truth-value of any RDF graph, given any interpretation.

To claim that the model theoretic style in which the RDF Semantics spec 
was written has any bearing whatsoever on the spec's purpose or its 
"appropriate use" would be a serious misrepresentation of its role as a 
W3C standard.

David Booth
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 19:19:00 UTC

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