W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > March 2003

Re: An exciting inference?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:06:52 -0500
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030317210652.GL7934@tux.w3.org>

* Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org> [2003-03-17 16:02-0500]
> Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> > * Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org> [2003-03-17 15:31-0500]
> ..> >
> > > ex:Speeder foo:fingerprint urn:uuid:12345... .
> > > ex:Robber foo:fingerprint urn:uuid:12345... .
> > >
> > > foo:fingerprint a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
> > >
> > > =>
> > >
> > > ex:Speeder owl:sameIndividualAs ex:Robber .
> >
> > Actually there is a property in FOAF that fits this usecase. Not
> > 'fingerprint', but foaf:dnaChecksum. It was intended as a JOKE! but
> > also a warning of technology potential... (see also various concerns
> > many have with TIA, eg. http://www.warblogging.com/tia/).
> >
> > See http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ (view src) for
> > foaf:dnaChecksum definition. I didn't actually specify an algorithm or
> > even concrete syntax, needless hopefully to say...
> >
> 
> Actually there is some interest and progress on using OWL for bioinformatics
> i.e. representing a gene sequence as a typed RDF description (Jim Hendler
> has done some work on this) but ... even that is frought with issues, for
> example, truly *identical twins* are different individuals that might have
> the same dnaChecksum...
> 
> nice try though :-)))

Good point! I worried more about collisions in the hashing algorithm
making it not strictly inverse-functional...

cheers,

dan
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 16:06:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:43 GMT