W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Semantic E-mail

From: Josh Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:52:34 -0400
To: Laurian Gridinoc <laurian@gmail.com>, Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <1089471154.15030.42.camel@phoenix>

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 04:21, Richard Newman wrote:

> I would suggest using sameAs or equivalentProperty, if the semantics  
> are equivalent (as may well be the case for, e.g. messageIDs).  
> Similarly, use subPropertyOf if that's the actual case (as you suggest  
> for DC identifier).

I'd be practically careful, here... looking at all three:

* owl:equivalentClass [1]
* owl:equivalentProperty [2]
* owl:sameAs [3]

It looks like both equivalentClass and equivalentProperty actually may
not describe the relation you [Laurian] are after.  Specifically, it
looks like both describe the state that the domain of the relations are
identical, but _specifically_not_ that the concepts are the same.

sameAs is defined for what you're after ["The owl:sameAs statements are
often used in defining mappings between ontologies"].

However, when you apply owl:sameAs to classes and properties, you've
started to treat classes as instances, which -- in my limited
understanding -- passes you from the computationally-feasible world of
OWL DL into the more heady world of OWL Full.  I still need to hit the
DL books a couple more times to figure out exactly why.

Thus, I'd say "use owl:sameAs, and create your mapping for humans, not

rdfs:seeAlso is something else.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#equivalentClass-def
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#equivalentProperty-def
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def


http://www.asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}`
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 10:52:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC