- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:49:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, "'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Yeah, there are bunch of different levels this conversation is running on, and I find it hard to follow them all. Here's what I think is being said: If someone makes a thesaurus with a concept that represents "this fellow Al" and someone else makes some FOAF RDF that talks about "the person with email address <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>", it would be helpful to have some way of saying that "(within the context where you believe this statement) these two sets of descriptions are of the same thing". A good reason for amking this a magic property that isn't just owl:sameAs or rdfs:subClass or something is to keep some seperation between the thesaurus stuff and the FOAF stuff. Because you're likely to find that in a number of contexts the relation doesn't hold. One such scenario is where the models of the different descriptions of Al are basically incompatible - for example one description says he is chinese because he lives in china and another says he is Thai because his father is. You could deal with this scenario by using provenance mechanisms to find out where each assertion about Al comes from, but for some number of use cases it's easier to have them seperated, with this proposed property as the "glue", than to merge the RDF graphs and then untangle the bits you want. One of these use cases (it's a real world use case even if the above doesn't hold) is what I described in - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Sep/0064.html earlier this evening (my time :-) cheers Chaals On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Stella Dextre Clarke wrote: > >Sorry, but I am completely lost in this conversation. Seems to me what >this bloke Alistair J Miles is really looking for is a sort of "Beam me >up Scotty" over the Internet. (Any minute now he'll pop right out of my >monitor.) I'm not just making a joke of it. I think I am saying you are >asking for the moon, and any approximation to the moon could prove >unsatisfactory.
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 20:49:12 UTC