- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:25:25 +0000
- To: Kevin Richards <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
It may have meant a number of things. But if you look at thread "Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)" which you can find in the middle of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/thread.html you should get a sense of some of what might have been meant. A chunk of reading - enjoy! Best Hugh On 28/11/2008 00:11, "Kevin Richards" <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote: > > > This mention of owl:sameAs reminds me of the mention of the "sameAs issue", at > ISWC, that has developed in the semantic web arena. > I can imagine what this issue is, but am not 100% sure, so can anyone explain > this issue to me? > > Thanks > Kevin Richards > > -----Original Message----- > From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Harry Halpin > Sent: Friday, 28 November 2008 2:05 a.m. > To: Richard Cyganiak > Cc: John Graybeal; public-lod@w3.org; Semantic Web > Subject: Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> >> >> On 26 Nov 2008, at 21:53, John Graybeal wrote: >> <snip> >>> would you agree that duplicating a massive set of URIs for 'local technical >>> simplification' is a bad practice? (In which case, is the question just a >>> matter of scale?) >> >> You are asking me if 'local technical simplification' is a good reason or a >> bad reason for duplicating URIs? Uh, I guess it depends... >> >> My point was this: The key benefits of URI re-use can also be obtained by >> minting your own URIs and linking them to existing URIs via adequate RDF >> properties. And that practice can have additional practical/implementation >> benefits (and costs). Hence, consider both options; there's no reason to >> knee-jerk against creating new identifiers. > > I agree in theory with Richard, but in practice with John. The key > benefits of URI re-use can only be gained by using multiple URIs if we > have "adequate URI properties" (i.e. owl:sameAs?) and given an adequate > reasoning system that can identify the same URIs in any data set - > including large ones - where we want to merge data using these "inferred > to be the same" URIs. > > To my knowldge, we have neither adequate URI properties or working > reasoning services, at least for the end-user. Now perhaps this will > change, but if not, why not re-use URIs? > > If we do have adequate URI properties besides the infamous owl:sameAs, > please point me to them. And while at ISWC there was clearly lots of work > on large-scale identity management trying to discover URI equivalences via > inference, I'm not sure how well that works right now. > > Furthermore, there's the question of what URI to use in the output if one > is identifying URI's to be the same and one wants to re-use the merged data. > > -harry > > >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> -------------- >>> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956 >>> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute >>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org >> > > -- > --harry > > Harry Halpin > Informatics, University of Edinburgh > http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email > Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is > confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, > disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by > reply email and then delete the emails. > The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New > Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz > >
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 12:26:22 UTC