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

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

From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:50:31 -0700
Message-ID: <406b38b50805160950v77f3262dga5fdbd756a2d16af@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, "Semantic Web Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Re: rdfs:sameAs

There are two issues here.

   1. Do we want a weaker relationship than owl:sameAs for expressing
   2. If we do, what should we call it

I think we definitely DO need a new relationship. I think calling it
rdfs:sameAs would be terribly confusing, per Jeremy's examples.

I have not given serious thought to what its precise semantics should be, or
what it should be called.  I don't know whether it should be an annotation
property, or a 'real' property in OWL. If the latter, then I think it should
be a super-property of owl:sameAs.

*I propose that this issue be tabled in the OWL 1.1 (or 2.0?) working group.


On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Jim Hendler wrote:
>> (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
> Not in my book. We then just have to ask
> rdfs:sameAs owl:sameAs owl:sameAs
> or
> rdfs:sameAs rdfs:sameAs owl:sameAs ?
> Oh ... maybe. We might end up with a hierarchy of equivalence relations.
> But managing that hierarchy would be even harder than managing just one.
> J
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 16:51:11 UTC

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