W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2007

RE: owl:sameAs use/misuse/abuse Re: homonym URIs

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:52:49 +0200
To: "'Pierre-Antoine Champin'" <swlists-040405@champin.net>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "'Bernard Vatant'" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c7aec5$fbb32340$6c7ba8c0@hans>

Hi Bernard,

In ISO 15926 we have a solution for that. We have to, because our aim is storing the lifetime (say 50 years) information of a process plant and its zillion of parts and subparts, and its streams, people, costs, etc.

We work with "temporal parts" that are parts of a WholelifeIndividual.

So we have the instance of WholeLifeIndividual that is you from your birth to your (hopefully very distant) death.
That individual has its own URI, but does not have a name yet.
Then, when you were three days or so old, your parents gave you your offical name. 
That is a property of a temporal part of you (new URI). Temporal, because you may change your name at some time during your life.
If you do that, you end that temporal part and create a new one (new URI again) with the new name as a property.

You start to work for Company A, that is, a temporal part of you works there, and that temporal part begins its existence at the date-time that your employment starts. You start with a salary of 1000€, that is: a temporal part of the temporal part that works for Company A makes that salary. When you get a raise, that temporal part ends, and a new one is created with the higher salary as a property, etc, etc.

Simultaneously you work with Company B, that is: yet another temporal part of you works there, and a temporal part of that temporal part earns 2000€, etc, etc.

Resuming, in principle there are trillions of temporal parts of you (e.g. for any time that you blink your eyes), but fortunately there is not a business need to put them all on record.

Thought it might interest you. Knowing the SW scene a little by now this will, at best, be seen as "interesting", without having something better to offer.


Hans Teijgeler
ISO 15926 specialist
+31-72-509 2005

-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine Champin
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 17:12
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: Bernard Vatant; semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs use/misuse/abuse Re: homonym URIs

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Bernard Vatant wrote:
>> Just to hit this owl:sameAs (ab)use nail a bit more.
>> Although I agree with Pat below (see my previous message) suppose I 
>> (or Richard) disagree(s) and want(s) to stick to the assertion 
>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin owl:sameAs 
>> http://sws.geonames.org/2950159/
>> Does that mean that what I get from the two resources should be not 
>> only consistent RDF descriptions, but *identical descriptions* ? I 
>> guess so. It's clear that it's not the current case.
> The point is, according to the owl:sameAs claim, there aren't two 
> resources, just one. One thing - with (at least two names (URIs). 
> Asking an information system (such as the Web itself, or a library 
> catalogue) about this thing could reasonably elicit different answers, 
> depending on which name is used. That doesn't mean there are two things.
> Similarly, in the real world, different people and info systems known 
> different things about me; they may even consider me to have different 
> names/URIs. But there's only one me.

Consider that I work for two different companies (in the morning and in the afternoon).
Both have a URI for me. Company 1 would state

comp1:champin emp:name "Champin" ;
              emp:salary "1000€" .

Company 2, on the other hand, would state

comp2:champin emp:name "Champin" ;
              emp:salary "2000€" .

using the same standardized properties, which happen to be functional.

It would seem legitimate to state that

comp1:champin owl:sameAs comp2:champin .

But that would lead to inconsistency (two different values for a functional property).

Both URIs denote me, but not the same "me", only the "me" I am from the point of view of each company.

Ambiguity is always lurking around.


> And so, anything true of me, is
> true of me. Some things might be true of one of my *names* (eg. that 
> it is mentioned in a particular database). So yup, owl:sameAs is a 
> pretty strong claim. Anything true of the one should be true of the 
> other; because there is just the one.(*)
> Whether an HTTP GET that returns a 200 should always return the same 
> thing, ... is an interesting question. It's certainly (if we believe 
> the HTTP responses, and we believe the owl:sameAs claim) supposed to 
> be considered an interaction with the same thing. But plenty of URIs 
> return different or random or context-specific responses.
> http://spypixel.com/2006/spanglish/futurebot.cgi names the self-same 
> resource as http://spypixel.com/2006/spanglish/futurebot.cgi (not 
> becaues of owl:sameAs, but because it is the same URI :)  ... yet two 
> GETs typically get different HTTP answers.
> Dan
> (*) tiptoing past philosophers of language here

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 13-Jun-07 12:50

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 14-Jun-07 12:44
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 20:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:57 UTC