- From: Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:53:44 -0300
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hummm, sorry. When talking about classes it does make sense ;) Or even skos:concepts ( which we can declared to belong to a given vocab, for example ). ( have been working with instance data for too long ). This might call for a way to make statements about a specific IRI, but that would require tertiary relations or some syntactic convention... sounds like going the wrong way. But no worse than the inferencing complexity that would arise from discarding owl:sameAs as a simple conceptual bridge between vocabularies. Sounds like a prob indeed. Best, A On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/ > -- :::: Aldo Bucchi :::: +56 9 7623 8653 skype:aldo.bucchi twitter:aldonline http://aldobucchi.com/ http://univrz.com/
Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 06:54:21 UTC