- From: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:30:30 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
On 28 Sep 2008, at 19:01, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > Dan Brickley wrote: >> Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> >>> Then between UMBEL and OpenCyc: >>> >>> 1. owl:sameAs >>> 2. owl:equivalentClass >> >> If these thingies are owl:sameAs, then presumably they have same IP- >> related characteristics, owners, creation dates etc? >> >> Does that mean Cycorp owns UMBEL? > Dan, > > No, it implies that in the UMBEL data space you have equivalence > between Classes used to define UMBEL subject concepts (subject > matter entities) and OpenCyc. I think Dan's point is that owl:sameAs is a very strong statement, as illustrated by the ownership question. If opencyc:Motorcyle owl:equivalentClass umbel:Motorcycle then they have the same extension. Informally, any use you make of one as a class can be replaced by the other without changing the meaning of the whole. However if the are owl:sameAs they name the same thing, so dc:creationDate, dc:creator, cc:license, rdfs:isDefinedBy etc etc are the same for each, which strike me as unhelpful side effects. owl:equivalentClass is the vocabulary mappers' friend :-) Damian
Received on Sunday, 28 September 2008 21:32:53 UTC