- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 13:48:17 -0400
- To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>, "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "William Waites" <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Here three ideas to relieve the pressure on owl:sameAs: 1) Promote the use of umbel:isLike 2) Suggest to FOAF that they add an informal "sameAs" property to their ontology: 3) Create our own "mashup" ontology with an informally defined mashup:sameAs property. In the latter two cases, it might be interesting to define it in a way that the "same as-ness" is limited to the graph in which the assertion is made. In effect, I think that's what umbel:isLike does. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Houghton,Andrew Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:34 PM To: Ross Singer; Karen Coyle Cc: William Waites; public-lld; Young,Jeff (OR) Subject: RE: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition > From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of Ross Singer > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 01:25 PM > To: Karen Coyle > Cc: William Waites; Houghton,Andrew; public-lld; Young,Jeff (OR) > Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition > And therein lies the rub. If skos:exactMatch/closeMatch didn't infer skos:Concepts on either end or foaf had some equivalency property, no problem. But some relatively obscure vocabulary (with a very difficult to grok general purpose) is going to be a much tougher sell. But perhaps this is an area for the working group to suggest that a general OWL DL linking ontology be developed... Andy.
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 17:48:47 UTC