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 12:35:25 -0400
Message-ID: <534819CD.4070305@openlinksw.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 4/11/14 12:03 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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 :-)

Just to close the loop re., comments above. Here is a more readable link 
to a document that describes the owl:sameAs relation [1].

[1] 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/2002/07/owl%01sameAs 
-- owl:sameAs relation
[2] 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl%23sameAs&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl 
-- ditto but with faceted navigation over relations, as an interaction 
option .

-- 

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 16:35:48 UTC

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