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

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

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:21:28 -0400
Message-Id: <DCB90097-F8B5-47C1-BF5B-4DE22272DC49@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, Semantic Web Interest Group <semantic-web@w3.org>

(note reduced cc-list, wish everyone would do that)

Fwiw, seems to me what we need is rdfs:sameas - with owl: sameas being  
a special, more restricted, case - like rdf vs owl class defs

Sent from my iPhone

On May 15, 2008, at 13:13, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>
> My take on the strength of owl:sameAs issue is that it depends on  
> what the application is trying to do.
>
> For some applications, a fairly loose use of owl:sameAs will be  
> really helpful, like between:
>
> [[
> For example, http://dbtune.org/jamendo/artist/5 and
> http://zitgist.com/music/artist/0781a3f3-645c-45d1-a84f-76b4e4decf6d
> dentify the same artist. One of them in the Jamendo database, and one
> of them in Musicbrainz.
> ]]
>
> or, what I get the impression to be looser, between
>
> [[
> Spain the political entity is the same as Spain the geopolicial  
> region.
> ]]
>
> or
>
> [[
> a city as from Cyc to a wikipedia article of that city
> ]]
>
> owl:sameAs, like any other predicate is a point of view,
> and we can choose to make interpretations of the world in which even  
> quite loose notions of identity hold.
>
> If we arrange that owl:sameAs triples of varying strengths are in  
> different graphs, then, different applications can load up with the  
> strength of sameAs that is appropriate to their needs, their world  
> view, their interpretation of the world.
>
> [I am deliberately trying to fudge on whether I mean  
> 'interpretation' in a formal or an informal sense]
>
> This sense of their being a multiplicity of world views originated  
> in the same collection of named graphs (in the limit, the whole of  
> the Semantic Web), is articulated in the named graphs papers in  
> terms of the application choosing which graphs to trust, where trust  
> is about fitness for purpose, rather than absolute truth.
>
> So, on the example of:
> [[
> a city as from Cyc to a wikipedia article of that city
> ]]
> a list of all such correspondences, between Cyc and wikipedia, might  
> be a great thing to have in a mash-up, and by all means use  
> owl:sameAs.
> But keep that list in a separate graph from other data, and I can  
> load it for a mash-up, and not for a different application in which  
> such loose thinking is not appropriate. Also, the more metadata we  
> provide about the metadata we provide, the easier it will be for  
> applications to make such choices, so being able to label a graph of  
> somewhat dodgy equivalences, as a graph of somewhat dodgy  
> equivalences, in a vocabulary that had sufficent deployment, would  
> help.
>
> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 20:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:22 GMT