- From: Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:16:34 -0300
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
I think you're overlooking something.... If you're using dc:author to state <http://dbpedia.org/resource/R%C3%B6yksopp> dc:author example:me ( which translates to: "I *created Royksopp*, the music band" ) And then Umbel states that *they created* the music band ( I made this up for the example ). <http://umbel.org/umbel/ne/wikipedia/R%C3%B6yksopp> dc:author ex:someoneElse . you will indeed run into problems when equating the two IDs. <http://dbpedia.org/resource/R%C3%B6yksopp> owl:sameAs <http://umbel.org/umbel/ne/wikipedia/R%C3%B6yksopp> But, AFAIK, this is *incorrect usage of dc:author* and not a design flaw re. owl:sameAs. Luckily, neither UMBEL nor DBpedia seem to be using dc:author incorrectly. Authorship metadata should not be attached to the ID for the concept, but to the vocabulary namespace or through other indirection. Which brings up another point: how do you state that a URI belongs to a given vocabulary. - URI opaqueness plays against here - is this really something we want/need? - ... If what you intend to equate is a document ( which usually have dc:* metadata ) with another doc that has different metadata, stop and rethink it. You might be wanting to equate the concepts they reference. A On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > > > 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 > > > -- :::: Aldo Bucchi :::: +56 9 7623 8653 skype:aldo.bucchi twitter:aldonline http://aldobucchi.com/ http://univrz.com/
Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 04:17:13 UTC