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

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:37:48 +0100
Message-Id: <2B2D0298-68C7-4AA0-9C51-66B3A14A9B19@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On 9 Jul 2008, at 12:27, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>> Thanks guys, a really interesting and important discussion.
>>> However, after the last couple of postings I have the feeling I  
>>> may agree
>>> with both of you.
>>> Is that possible?
>>>
>> Bijan et. al. are right about the semantics of owl:sameAs, but as  
>> I've said before, I think that something weaker needs to be coined  
>> ("lod:equivalentTo") that states that two URIs refer to the same  
>> thing but that any semantic entailments *may* not hold (i.e. user  
>> beware). That's a dangerous thing, I agree, but it seems to be  
>> what the Linked Data community needs and what's happening  
>> organically in the wild with the (ab)use of owl:sameAs.
>
> Never mind the 'semantic entailments' bit for now. If your new  
> property is designed for saying that the two URIs refer to the same  
> thing, then it simply means (at the prose level) what owl:sameAs  
> says more formally. That's too strong to be a useful addition. You  
> can't simply say in the English prose "lod:equivalentTo is for when  
> two descriptions are of the same thing (but please don't tell the  
> machines that it means this!)". Well you can but I advise against  
> it...
>
>
> I suggest instead a property "thingMap".
>
> label "thingMap"
>
> comment "a thing; either another very similar thing, or the exact  
> self-same thing."
>
> notes: this property can be used to indicate either the close  
> similarity of two things being described, as well as in situations  
> where owl:sameAs is applicable, ie. when there is only one thing.  
> The notion of 'similarity' is left broad, but the expectation is  
> that it will find use for making mapping claims when an owl:sameAs  
> claim might not be easily justifiable.
>
> Plausible?

I don't know :) I presume people want some guidance on what thingMap  
*does*, i.e., how it changes the answers they get.

Here's my harebrained thought: Let's start with "seeAlso". "seeAlso"  
suggests that you might look at this other thing for some reason or  
other. Some tools follow and pull in seeAlsos, and some don't.

One could try to refine seeAlso in a variety of ways.  
"seeAlsoThisTermWhichWhileSpeltDifferentlyReallyIsTheSameAsMyTerm".  
"seeAlsoThisVariantDefinitionAndSpellingOfMyTerm".  
"seeAlsoAndAdmireGreatly". Etc. "seeAlsoAndBlindlyMerge".

Personally, I'd like to see, er, seeAlso turn into a non-logical  
operator that would give import like directives.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:35:37 UTC

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