W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:25:25 +0000
To: Kevin Richards <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5598835.281EC%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

It may have meant a number of things.
But if you look at thread
"Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)"
which you can find in the middle of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/thread.html
you should get a sense of some of what might have been meant.
A chunk of reading - enjoy!
Best

Hugh

On 28/11/2008 00:11, "Kevin Richards" <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz>
wrote:

>
>
> This mention of owl:sameAs reminds me of the mention of the "sameAs issue", at
> ISWC, that has developed in the semantic web arena.
> I can imagine what this issue is, but am not 100% sure, so can anyone explain
> this issue to me?
>
> Thanks
> Kevin Richards
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Harry Halpin
> Sent: Friday, 28 November 2008 2:05 a.m.
> To: Richard Cyganiak
> Cc: John Graybeal; public-lod@w3.org; Semantic Web
> Subject: Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26 Nov 2008, at 21:53, John Graybeal wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> would you agree that duplicating a massive set of URIs for 'local technical
>>> simplification' is a bad practice? (In which case, is the question just a
>>> matter of scale?)
>>
>> You are asking me if 'local technical simplification' is a good reason or a
>> bad reason for duplicating URIs? Uh, I guess it depends...
>>
>> My point was this: The key benefits of URI re-use can also be obtained by
>> minting your own URIs and linking them to existing URIs via adequate RDF
>> properties. And that practice can have additional practical/implementation
>> benefits (and costs). Hence, consider both options; there's no reason to
>> knee-jerk against creating new identifiers.
>
> I agree in theory with Richard, but in practice with John. The key
> benefits of URI re-use can  only be gained by using multiple URIs if we
> have "adequate URI properties"  (i.e. owl:sameAs?) and given  an adequate
> reasoning system  that can identify the same URIs in any data  set -
> including large ones -  where we want to merge data using these  "inferred
> to be the same" URIs.
>
> To my knowldge, we have neither adequate URI properties or working
> reasoning services, at least for the end-user. Now perhaps this will
> change, but if not, why not re-use URIs?
>
> If we do have adequate URI properties besides the infamous owl:sameAs,
> please point me to them. And while at ISWC there was clearly lots of work
> on large-scale identity management trying to discover URI equivalences via
> inference, I'm not sure how well that works right now.
>
> Furthermore, there's the question of what URI  to use in the output if one
> is identifying URI's to be the same and one wants to re-use the merged data.
>
>                 -harry
>
>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
>>> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>>
>
> --
>                                 --harry
>
>         Harry Halpin
>         Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>          http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 12:26:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:26 GMT