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

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

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:12:43 +0000
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@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>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009FCF7EE89C6@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
> 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.

Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said: 'I don't know how you determine which is the "real" mistake'.  I thought you were implying that one could just as well interpret your example:

>> E.g., If I say someTerm dc:creator "Bijan" and someone else
>> someOtherTerm dc:creator "BoogerHead Jones", and then we say that
>> someTerm sameAs someOtherTerm, we've (semantically) lost the
>> distinguish between who created what.

as a misuse of owl:sameAs or a misuse of dc:creator, and I was pointing out that, no, according to my understanding of the RDF and OWL semantics documents, one could *not* just as well view this as a misuse of owl:sameAs: the misuse (if there is one) is clearly of dc:creator.

> 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.

No, it was not silly.  The point was to be clear about what documents I meant.  I was not intending to refer to any particular section or quote.  I am well aware that *you* know about those documents, but I consider it a matter of good list etiquette to at least make an attempt to be clear to other readers also.

> 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).

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "annotation smushing" or "definition smooshing" -- examples would be very helpful.  Can you show some others?

But the argument that "Typically, people mean that to be an annotation" (in reference to the above example), sounds a lot like it is trying to justify a dilution of the RDF semantics in the case of this kind of "annotation" example merely because people misuse it that way.  And I don't think it would make sense to do that, just as I don't think we should dilute the semantics of owl:sameAs.

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 02:18:23 UTC

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