W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > July 2010

RE: MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:27:17 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5908DF4D2E@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>, "William Waites" <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>
Cc: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, "List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data" <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Let me address Ross' question before attempting to argue that restraint
to a single rdf:type is good practice.


Here is the example in question:




The owl:sameAs property asserts that these two URIs identify "the same
thing" (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def):





The 1st URI responds with this statement:


<http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/muscomp/sy#genre> rdf:type


The 2nd URI responds with this:


<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Symphony> rdf:type

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Symphony> rdf:type


Other rdf:type and owl:sameAs assertions cascade from there in dbpedia.


The following document isn't authoritative, but it discusses some of the
confusion surrounding owl:sameAs and may also help us sort out the




Here is a quote:


"However, owl:sameAs does have a particular semantics of individual
identity, namely that the two individuals are exactly the same and so
share all the same properties." (original emphasis).


Since rdf:type is a property, I assume that an OWL reasoner should back
me up in my claim that Ross' example has multiple rdf:types. I just
downloaded Pellet and will report on the results once I figure out how
to run it. Hopefully, it will demonstrate how "share" involving
owl:sameAs plays out in practice.





From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
To: William Waites
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Antoine Isaac; Karen Coyle; public-xg-lld@w3.org;
List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data; public-lld
Subject: Re: MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition


My question was more based on the fact that I don't think anything
should have explicitly set multiple rdf:types in there.


If so, I'm curious to what they are.



On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM, William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>

On 10-07-05 10:35, Ross Singer wrote:
> Jeff, which resources have multiple rdf:types?  Of the muscomps, they
> should all only be mo:Genre.

I think it is perfectly valid to have multiple types. At the
very minimum everything is an rdfs:Resource whether
stated explicitly or not. If something breaks when it is
explicitly stated because it doesn't like multiple types I
think that something is itself broken...


William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 16:28:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:54 UTC