Re: rdfs:sameAs There are two issues here. 1. Do we want a weaker relationship than owl:sameAs for expressing similarity 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. * Michael 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