- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:01:30 +0100
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: [snip] >> I don't know how you determine which is the "real" mistake. > > By reading the semantics of RDF and OWL: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ I'm not sure why you think there's any dispute about the formal semantics. The point is that it might do more (or other) than people might expect, need, or want. And, well, that was some silly referencing wasn't it? I mean, it's entirely non specific (no subsection; no quote). And you know I know about those documents. So I'm not sure your point. Plus, there are several semantics in there with somewhat different properties. >> Typically, people mean that to be an annotation (e.g., myClass >> dc:creator "Bijan"). You can argue that the annotation system is >> broken (I've done that), but that really just pushes things around. > > Well if we're arguing that the semantics of owl:sameAs should not > be diluted, then I would think we should first take as a given that > the semantics of RDF should not be diluted. I didn't argue anything about that. I pointed out that sameAs isn't typically what is *wanted* (because of annotation smushing, but as easily because of definition smooshing). If we had annotations that were resilient to sameAs, it would weaken the argument against using sameAs. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:02:10 UTC