Re: related measurements (MATCHING) for property names

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Kalpa Gunaratna <kalpa@knoesis.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>    I know that SKOS has several matching properties for concepts in
> ontologies like skos:closeMatch, skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and
> skos:relatedMatch . I want to get some notion to say that two property
> names in two ontologies relate or closely match each other. Since SKOS is
> defined for concepts, I think I can't use it for my purpose here. For
> example, I want to use something like 'SKOS:closeMatch" for two property
> names if they mean the same in two datasets. I want to know whether there
> is work going on regarding this issue and if so point me to a resource so
> that I can use it for my purpose here. Thank you.


There are several possible answers depending on what is intended by (a)"two
property names"/ (b)"mean[ing] the same"/ (c) "in two datasets".

The reading that seems most plausible to me is that:

1: There are two sets of individuals DS1 and DS2.   To simplify things, we
can let D1 and D2 be classes whose extensions are the subjects of
assertions in  DS1 and DS2   (c)
2: There are two predicates, P1 and P2       (a)

3: If two properties named by A and B,  mean the same thing in any and all
contexts, then the properties have  identical extensions  (forall (?x ?y )
(iff (A ?x ?y) (B ?x ?y)).
    If this is the case, then they are *owl:equivalentProperty*  .  This
does not mean that they are the *same* property; it just means that they
have the same extension.  If the two properties *are* really the same
property, then the properties are also  *owl:sameAs*  .

4: If two properties named A and B  are not *owl:equivalentProperty *,
there must be some combination of subject and object where  A holds, but B
does not.
If the properties do have the same extensions for classes D1 and D2,  we
can express this in CLIF as:
       (iff  (D1or2 ?x) (or (D1 ?x) (D2 ?x))
       (forall ((?x D1or2)  ?y) (iff  (A ?x ?y) (B ?x ?y)))

In OWL we are a bit more restricted: however,  we can get the same net
result we create a new property C which is an rdfs:subProperty of  both A
and of  B, and whose rdfs:domain is D1 or  D2, and replace all assertions
of A and B in DS1 and DS2 with assertions of C.   From any assertion ?x C
?y, we can infer ?x A ?y and ?x B ?y.  We can also infer that ?x type D1
and ?x type D2 cannot both be false.

Simon