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

Re: Semantic E-mail

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:52:17 +0100
Message-Id: <80983F89-D291-11D8-8E21-000A957D9564@reading.ac.uk>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

I may also have to hit the DL books, but I think that's right: I 
believe that what the definition means by "same property extension" is 
that the pairs are the same, but not necessarily the semantics.

I.e. if property X and property Y always occur together, then 
equivalentProperty holds between them, even if X does not mean the same 
as Y.

Similarly for classes --- equivalentClass means that they have the same 
members, but may not mean the same thing. E.g. 'hasYChromosome' and 
'isMale' for humans (please forgive the bad example).

In the case of mapping between ontologies, then, this might be enough 
--- I'm sure it depends on the problem domain. For something like a 
message ID, it might even be the best solution --- each standard has 
slightly different meanings, but the interpretation is the same.

I agree with your warning about owl:sameAs --- it does apply to 
individuals. Again, in mapping between ontologies it would be useful in 
referring to shared instances (perhaps senders of messages, for 
example).

This is an interesting topic... I'm sure there must be a good (and 
decidable!) way of doing it!

-Richard

On 10 Jul 2004, at 15:52, Josh Sled wrote:
> 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.
> </semanticHairSplitting>
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 12:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC