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

Re: Semantic E-mail

From: Laurian Gridinoc <laurian@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:01:17 +0000
Message-ID: <9782e335040715080133ac9916@mail.gmail.com>
To: danny@dannyayers.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:31:59 +0200, Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it> wrote:
> >>{1}
> >>m1 filsa:messageid "Message One"
> >>m2 filsa:messageid "Message Two"
> >>m3 filsa:messageid "Message Three"
> >>
> >>if you said
> >>{2}
> >>new:messageId owl:equivalentProperty filsa:messageid
> >>
> >>then you could infer -
> >>{3}
> >>m1 new:messageId "Message One"
> >>m2 new:messageId "Message Two"
> >>m3 new:messageId "Message Three"
> >
> >yes,  "Message One" is then a value of `filsa:messageid'; but this
> >does not imply that the statement `m1 new:messageId "Message One"'
> >have the same meaning as `m1 new:messageId "Message One"'
> 
> ???

I wanted to say:

  m1 new:messageId "Message One"
           plus
  new:messageId owl:equivalentProperty filsa:messageid
           results that the statement
  m1 filsa:messageid "Message One" 
           exists.

But I don't think this implies that the statement
  m1 new:messageId "Message One"
        has the same meaning as
  m1 filsa:messageid "Message One" 

That is why I'm after sameAs:

> >>you could swap it around, so new:messageId was the more general
> >>property, but it depends on what the semantics actually are, what you're
> >>trying to capture...
> >owl:sameAs :)
> Ok, I don't see the advantage in doing it this way, but fair enough.

 
> >>p1 rdfs:subPropertyOf p2
> >>p2 rdfs:subPropertyOf p1
> >>
> >>the combination expresses equivalence of the properties, and an OWL Full
> >>reasoner could get {3} from {1} and vice versa.
> >
> >I have thought of this construction, but I'm not sure if it is
> >considered logical valid, creating a loop in a hierarchy?
> >
> Perfectly valid. Remember too that every class is a subclass of itself
> (rdfs10) and every property a subproperty of itself (rdfs6), see also:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#sinterp

Subclass of itself sounds acceptable, I supposed that a loop like this
around 2 or more classes may not be accepted by a machine
(contradiction or infinite looping).

Being a valid construct, solves my vocabulary mapping issues.

Thank you for clarifications :)


Cheers,
-- 
Laurian Gridinoc
Chief Developer
GRAPEFRUIT DESIGN
www.gd.ro
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 11:02:20 UTC

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