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

RE: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies

From: Kevin Richards <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:01:48 +1300
To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03894928E052DD47A5ED29BC0822619B02634A8BAC@donkey.landcare.ad.landcareresearch.co.nz>

Thanks Xiaoshu, very helpful.
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
Sent: Monday, 1 December 2008 11:29 p.m.
To: Kevin Richards
Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Semantic Web
Subject: Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies



Kevin Richards 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?
>
I remember there is a discussion on one of the W3C's mailing list about
the ambiguity of "owl:sameAs" but couldn't remember where it is.  But I
can offer my own explanation.

Its cause is a very fundamental one because the current URI
specification is, in fact, syntactically incomplete.  With current URI
spec, the referential realm of URI is anything but URI.  (Of course, I
can mint another URI to denote another instance of a URI class, but then
there needs to be a standard way to find this information).

Thus, if a URI denotes a URI, the semantics of "a owl:sameAs b" would
mean that "a" is simply an syntactic alias of "b" and nothing-else.
But if a URI denotes a non-URI resource, "a owl:sameAs b" would imply
that a semantic alias.  That is: "a" is an syntactic alias of "b" PLUS
a's and b's representations collectively describe the meaning of "a/b".
To put it plainly, the second semantics implies an owl:import but the
first one does not because the representation of a URI is literally
itself but the representation of a resource requires dereference.  I
think, with the current URI specification, the owl:sameAs is for the
second semantics.  In this case, it is not as cheap as people think that
minting a URI first and later binding it with others using owl:sameAs.
If a's representation is not logically consistent with b's, then the
owl:sameAs leads to a null model.

What makes the issue complicated, however, is that the ambiguity of
owl:sameAs is not with the problem of OWL but that of URI.  The issue
also touched upon our conceptualization of URI, resource,
representation, information/document, and meaning.  I have discussed
this issue quite extensively in a manuscript that I have submitted to
WWW2009.  As a pending manuscript, I don't think that it is appropriate
to post it here.  But if anyone is interest in reading it, send me an email.

Xiaoshu




> 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
>
>

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 20:02:30 GMT

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