W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2008

Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:10:03 +0200
Message-ID: <210271540807051110i29896b1gdd4d577a5dc4ad4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Earle Martin" <earle@downlode.org>, "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>

Hi Bernard, there were talks on LOD some time ago (now migrating the
dicussion there) from Hugh Glaser if i am not wrong about using
something different from sameAs, i dont recall precisely.

Hugh was it ever formally defined some alternative to sameAs? i think
if there is something witha clear use and consensus we should add it
in the publishing linked data tutorials.

but on the other hand.. i think one always has to cautiously and
defensively interpret statements that are found on the semantic web,
so with respect to this, automaticlaly turning "sameAs" into something
less powerful or directional before doing one's reasoning seems
nevertheless a good idea.


On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Bernard Vatant
<bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
> Hi Giovanni
> Interesting view - not answering the initial question, though - except to
> confirm that OWL does not provide any out-of-the-box answer ... which is no
> news. :-) .
> That said, having a non-symmetrical interpretation of 'owl:sameAs' is a bit
> of a hack. Default more accurate vocabulary, owl:sameAs is used for about
> any kind of "referent similarity" (we've discussed that at length many times
> in this and other forums). In the case you explain the property to use (and
> which is indeed lacking in the standard vocabulary) should be something like
> ":compatibleWith" ...
> a:foo      :compatibleWith      b:bar
> ... meaning that if you can add elements of description of :bar to those of
> :foo. Which is not necessarily symmetrical. For example DBpedia has indeed
> one "Berlin" whereas Geonames has two (the administrative subdivision and
> the populated place). So we could write.
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin>    :compatibleWith
>  <http://sws.geonames.org/2950159/>
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin>    :compatibleWith
>  <http://sws.geonames.org/2950157/>
> Actually what we need is a namespace and vocabulary for all those flavors of
> URI similarity and equivalence to be used on the Web, diffferent from OWL
> and RDFS namespace.
> Bernard
> Giovanni Tummarello a écrit :
>>> "http:..." or something equivalent, not a reference <http:...>, since in
>>> the
>>> latter case you're talking about what the URI names, not the URI itself,
>>> and
>>> things can have more than one name - some of which might be deprecated,
>>> and
>> Some thoughs:
>> Pragmatically speaking if there is one thing that "linked data" buys
>> us is new URIs for the same thing others might be talking about, but
>> specifically minted within "one's context", that is the name space of
>> the site who's hosting the RDF
>> so http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin is really not "berlin" in
>> general but obviously "something that they have in their DB that has
>> label "berlin" and bla bla
>> then there is http://geonames/123456 that might also be berlin.  If
>> there is an agreement by the dbpedia guys that that entity is
>> equivalent for DBPEDIA PURPOSES to their entities then the dbpedia
>> people put a "sameAs" between the two. So "sameAs" on the web of
>> linked data is always a "directed sameAs"
>> This pragmatic interpretation should be "we people at dbpedia believe
>> that it might be useful for you as a robot to also go collect
>> information from this other source as we find it generally compatible
>> with the information we provide here"
>> given this interpretation of "linked data URIs" (something i
>> previously called URI/URLs and i still dont find a better term for it)
>> then i believe its perfectly valid to state things about the URI
>> itself, since they always must be interpreted within the context where
>> they were taken.
>> i know, OWL doesnt account for this, that is, it will not make
>> distinctions between "context only valid statements" and not.. but i
>> see no alternative to deal with this at preprocessing level, e.g. when
>> you crawler picks up linked data information, you should look for said
>> context onyl valid statments before you smush all together with the
>> sameAs
>> Giovanni
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.135 / Virus Database:
>> 270.4.4/1532 - Release Date: 03/07/2008 08:32
> --
> *Bernard Vatant
> *Knowledge Engineering
> ----------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca**
> *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
> Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Saturday, 5 July 2008 18:10:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:40 UTC