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

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

From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:02:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=X4OCXZXCFg41jcXW6hHDFJSVGxR1irENbt52y=UsbsVtEnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: (wrong string) žİMžEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
     Hello David,

  We agree that there are different interpretations. But you haven't
shown that the boundaries between interpretations are graphs
boundaries (others, including me, think that each interpretation is
global).

  That makes me wonder whether you consider it in conformance with the
specs to choose different boundaries?

  For example, would you consider it conforming to apply a different
interpretation to each statement? Or how about a different
interpretation for each node of a statement? Do you see anything in
the specs against doing so?

     Take care
     Oliver

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
IT Project Lead at PanGenX (http://www.pangenx.com)
The purpose is always improvement
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 20:02:44 UTC

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