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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 01:20:03 +0100
Cc: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <1C30490F-FF52-4F4B-85F3-E6056A6DDB4E@cyganiak.de>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 9 Jul 2008, at 00:11, Bijan Parsia wrote:
[big snip]
> Complaining that the Big Nasty People Who Know What They're Talking  
> About are raining on your sameAs parade isn't constructive.

Ah Bijan. How about *you* grow up, flameboy?

You keep asserting that There Are Technical Problems With Using  
sameAs. It would help your argument if you told us what those  
technical problems actually *are*. I heard you say that using  
owl:sameAs could bite us in the butt. Could you be more specific?

Many people in this forum, including me, do not have a background in  
formal logics. Without that background, it is hard to distinguish  
proper uses of owl:sameAs from improper uses of owl:sameAs. Please  
give us some guidance on that rather than wasting your intellect on  
fanning the flames.

A side note: The reason why I advocate the use of owl:sameAs is not  
that it's the *right* solution. But it's *the only solution that was  
available*. The alternative would have been to argue for a year or two  
instead of linking up our datasets. Not compelling. That being said,  
I'm very interested in hearing your take on when I should use  
owl:sameAs and when not.

Richard



> Perhaps your should direct your bile toward people who claim that  
> sameAs is a solution.

>
>>> First, people *do* use sameAs for the semantics (to some degree).  
>>> But often
>>> those semantics are wrong. People champion that use. I think  
>>> that's a
>>> mistake. It can seriously bite you on the butt as you add more  
>>> expressivity.
>>> If you don't ever use more expressivity it won't (perhaps).
>>
>> How do you propose people should be able to generically say that two
>> URI's refer to the same real world thing if their representational
>> data structures
>
> You lost me with your jargon.
>
>> are fundamentally disjoint and hence saying owl:sameAs
>> will break something somewhere at some point in time?
>
> That's not what I was concerned about.
>
>> Do any of the
>> OWL normative documents deal with this issue?
>
> Frame the question concretely and intelligibly and perhaps I can  
> help you.
>
>>> One can only tackle so many issues at a time. I try to give some  
>>> info so
>>> people, instead of using what I think is the wrong thing, can  
>>> figure out
>>> something better.
>>
>> This is a big issue currently.
>
> There are lots of issues. Many of them are big to many people. Why  
> not try to solve some?
>
>> What alternatives do you have to give them?
>
> I'm not sure why you think that I shouldn't point out technical  
> problems with using sameAs.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 00:20:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:40 UTC