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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:50:52 +0200
Message-ID: <482C31AC.5040104@danbri.org>
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: 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>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>, Michael Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>, Conor Shankey <cshankey@reinvent.com>, Kira Oujonkova <koujonkova@reinvent.com>, a.o.jaffri@ecs.soton.ac.uk, hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk, icm@ecs.soton.ac.uk

Aldo Gangemi wrote:
> Thanks Michael.
> BTW, I was not suggesting rdfs:seeAlso or skos:related as a good 
> practice, but as a less harmful one :)
> A

Just a brief point here, without having fully digested all previous 
discussion. I've noticed over the years that there is a tendency in this 
community to (over)use owl:sameAs without always appreciating the 
strength of those claims. Loosly, it is used as if it was a 'these are 
pretty much the same' claim about two things, rather than a claim that 
there is just one thing with different names/identifiers.



Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 12:51:51 UTC

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