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

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

From: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:38:44 +0100
Message-Id: <51E8D02B-085C-4569-BA73-6E0CB7718E6D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>

On 9 Jul 2008, at 13:04, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> On 9 Jul 2008, at 12:53, Yves Raimond wrote:
>
>>> If the best data / tools you have suggest that two docs/datasets are
>>> describing the selfsame entity, using owl:sameAs seems fine, even  
>>> if you
>>> have a secret hunch you're only perhaps 95% confident of the data  
>>> quality or
>>> tool reliability. If the best information you have instead is  
>>> telling you
>>> "these two documents seem to be talking about more or less the  
>>> same notion",
>>> then owl:sameAs probably isn't for you: it doesn't communicate  
>>> what you
>>> know. Which of these situations you're in might be something of a  
>>> judgement
>>> call, but it should be a judgement call grounded in clarity about  
>>> what a use
>>> of owl:sameAs is claiming.
>>
>> Just jumping on that part. My particular use-case is that I have an
>> algorithm to automatically derive owl:sameAs between two datasets  
>> [1].
>> This algorithm gives a really low-rate of false-positives after
>> evaluation. However, whenever this tool publish an owl:sameAs
>> statement, it has a "confidence" associated with it. Is there any
>> "standard" way to publish this confidence, as well as the sameAs
>> statement?
>
> No. OWL2 allows for axiom annotations, but these tend to look fairly  
> ugly in RDF (due to reification).
>
> If you wanted to support some inference with those, you may want to  
> try Pronto:
> 	http://pellet.owldl.com/pronto
>
> Pavel and I are looking for test data.
>
> We also used axiom annotations to associate probabilities with  
> assertions, see:
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System
> esp.
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System#Probabilistic_extension

That looks interesting, but I can't read OWL(2) syntax, so can't  
imagine what the interpretation in triples would look like.

Yves' problem could be solved with "hand-reification" (I'm sure  
there's a proper term for it), a la:

<http://example.org/a> :similarToConfidence [
   :similarTo <http://example.org/b> ;
   :confidence 0.4 ;
] .

That doesn't have any strict interpretation of course, but it is at  
least more convenient to work with at an RDF level.

> You might also look at my reificaiton table:
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reification_Alternatives

I like the data URI one, though it has some issues, possibly not as  
many as the other schemes.

Named Graphs are somewhat blessed by the SPARQL GRAPH operator - it's  
doesn't give all of the named graphs idea but gives enough. Probably  
not useful for annotations on small units of RDF though.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:39:43 UTC

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