- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:08:52 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote: > > On 7/25/07, Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk> wrote: >> Doesn't "alias" (or owl:sameAs) mean just "refers to >> the same thing", not "identical for all possible >> purposes"? > >> From the spec; > > "The built-in OWL property owl:sameAs links an individual to an > individual. Such an owl:sameAs statement indicates that two URI > references actually refer to the same thing: the individuals have the > same "identity"." > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def > > And Merriam Webster defines "alias" as "otherwise called" > -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/alias > > Both of those say to me that we're talking about the concept of > different names (URIs) for the same thing (resource). Correct. One way to make this clear is to ask "how many resources are there?". The language of the OWL spec is a bit confusing there, since it talks of "two" individuals. >> I don't think two terms being aliases (or >> owl:sameAs) implies that: >> >> 1. they take exactly the same amount of ink to >> print in 37 point Arial. >> >> 2. they collate in the same order in all languages. >> >> 3. they hurt your throat the same amount to say. >> >> 4. they are as easy as each other to remember. > > Those are properties of the name itself. Obviously the names are > different. Yup >> >> 5. they are suitable for use in the same >> circumstances. >> >> 6. they have dictionary definitions which are >> word-for-word identical. > > No? I would expect both of those would hold. Why wouldn't they? In RDF, usage suitability can be a property of a name. For example, I try not to use names for RDF classes and properties that begin http:// and whose domain name does not seem to be paid up for at least 2-3 years. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 14:09:04 UTC