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: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:36 +0100
Message-Id: <E505AD8F-3536-409E-A1B2-293FAA481772@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 10, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
[snip]
> 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.

You've given no explanation how that would work.

No one denies that that is what follows according to the semantics.  
The question is what is the task at hand and the fitness of the  
existing semantics to that task. If the task at hand is to indicate  
that two terms are co-referential (but, for example, coined by  
different people for different purposes) then, given the rest of the  
ecosystem, sameAs is the wrong thing.

That you can repair the rest of the ecosystem so it's ok is  
irrelevant, yes? Esp. as the rest of the ecosystem isn't going to be  
"fixed" soon.

[snip]
>> 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.

I gave one ...the dc:creator one. Make a dc:date-modified.

>   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.

I'm not particularly concerned with misuse per se. "Misuse" often is  
an indicator of desired behavior and problems with the spec or the  
tech. If you're happy to recommend people don't use RDF for  
annotation of the terms they coin...well, ok.

> 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.

It's hard for me to see how you are connecting to the current issue.  
If you think that the current semantics of everything is hunky dory  
for mapping and alignment, then it's pretty obvious that we disagree.  
But then dilution and purity  of the spec arguments are simply  
irrelevant. No mere appeal to spec or semantics can determine the  
fitness of a feature to a given task.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 08:34:14 UTC

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