W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:03:13 -0400
Message-ID: <53481241.4030702@openlinksw.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 4/11/14 11:42 AM, Justin Boyan wrote:
> I'm going to +1 Dan's first post on this thread, where he suggested 
> reusing sameAs for this purpose and not introducing a new top-level 
> property.
>
> sameAs already exists to allow linking to a reference page for an 
> entity, like its Wikipedia page, Freebase page, or website (DNS 
> registry page). The social sites motivating the 'hasAccount' proposal 
> -- Facebook, Twitter, G+, LinkedIn, etc. -- can equally be viewed as 
> catalogs of entities. The issue of who controls the data for that 
> entity on the site is a slippery issue that wouldn't be captured in 
> the account vs. sameAs distinction anyway.
>
> In fact, sameAs is actually clearer semantically than 'hasAccount': 
>  an organization like the BBC with many Twitter accounts might be 
> tempted to list all of them under 'hasAccount', whereas sameAs more 
> clearly limits the desired link to just the top-level account for the 
> BBC as a whole. (Twitter accounts for suborganizations of the BBC 
> would be better modeled via sameAs links from entities corresponding 
> to those suborganizations.)
>
> I don't see any particular semantic gain from { BBC hasAccount 
> twitter.com/BBC <http://twitter.com/BBC> } compared to { BBC sameAs 
> twitter.com/BBC <http://twitter.com/BBC> }.
>
> Whereas, I'm concerned that webmasters will become ever more confused 
> when they have to worry about hasAccount alongside the existing 
> sameAs, url, and @id on every single schema.org <http://schema.org> type.
>
> My $0.02.
> Justin
Justin,

I assumed "account" and my suggested "hasAccount" denoted actual 
"account ownership" oriented relations i.e., relationship properties 
that determine how two entities are associated. In short, my entry into 
this thread was all to do with providing counter points to some 
arguments about unambiguous vs ambiguous entity denotation, using HTTP 
URIs.

Of course I wouldn't be suggesting "account" or "hasAccount" as 
identifiers for coreference relations.

'same as', 'sameAs', :sameAs, <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs>, 
are different kinds of identifiers that denote age-old coreference 
relations. The only issue is whether inference and reasoning on these 
relations is scoped to:

1. humans
2. machines
3. both.

Hope this clarifies my position :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 16:03:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC