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

Re: Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 13:42:52 +0100
Message-ID: <82593ac00805150542i7465afe3q4397eac340e8090c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Aldo Gangemi" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Michael F Uschold" <uschold@gmail.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Sören Auer" <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, "Semantic Web Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "Fabian M. Suchanek" <f.m.suchanek@gmail.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@csail.mit.edu>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, "Mark Greaves" <markg@vulcan.com>, georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de, "Jens Lehmann" <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, "Frederick Giasson" <fred@fgiasson.com>, "Michael Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "Conor Shankey" <cshankey@reinvent.com>, "Kira Oujonkova" <koujonkova@reinvent.com>


> Agreed. I do not want to be picky about that: SW is Web, and errors are
> life.
> Just there is no need to use owl:sameAs in many cases, and at least in LOD
> large projects, this can be avoided easily.

Sorry to jump in the middle of this discussion, but I don't
particularly agree with that. They are plenty of cases where they
can't really be avoided, even in LOD large projects.
For example, http://dbtune.org/jamendo/artist/5 and
identify the same artist. One of them in the Jamendo database, and one
of them in Musicbrainz.

Both databases hold *really* different type of information about these
artists. Musicbrainz holds detailed editorial information (regardless
of their publication in the Jamendo Creative Commons platform),
information about the members of this band and their birth dates, etc.
Jamendo holds actual audio items, and also a set of tags for each of them.

As an URI is not only an identifier but also a way to access a
specific representation, how could I use a single URI in this case? In
other words, how would I avoid the owl:sameAs between the two?

Different data sources make different claims about similar thing, and
we need both a way to access these claims and to keep the cross-source
identity. I think owl:sameAs is quite a nice way of doing that.

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 12:43:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:04 UTC