- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:35 +0000
- To: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- CC: "'David Pratt'" <fairwinds@eastlink.ca>, semantic-web@w3.org
Hans Teijgeler wrote: > It turns out that some vendors are more descriptive (using more > properties in the schema) than others. When I consolidate, I would > really like to combine the efforts of the vendors so that my part > information in my national data store is as comprehensive as possible. > > [HT] You can only safely consolidate that IFF the more and the less > described classes are *really* the same. In that case use > owl:equivalentClass [2] > This seems to get to the heart of at least one issue: A purist approach worries a lot about identity and equivalence. A more practical approach is concerned with utility. If it is useful to assert that two classes are equivalent, then maybe do it, but be aware that problems may arise later, because the two concepts were independently developed (and owned) by different people who have different views of the world. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 09:51:19 UTC