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 22:01:30 +0100
Message-Id: <8D4411C6-5C6D-4350-94F5-D12C322A7C7D@cs.man.ac.uk>
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>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>> 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  

>> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:02:10 UTC

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