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

Re: Drilling into the LOD Cloud

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:03:30 +1000 (EST)
To: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <12821329.01222718595908.JavaMail.peter@Macintosh-2.local>

----- "Damian Steer" <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

> From: "Damian Steer" <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
> To: public-lod@w3.org
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:25:37 PM GMT +10:00 Brisbane
> Subject: Re: Drilling into the LOD Cloud
> [sorry, forgot to reply-all]
> Peter Ansell wrote:
> | That is fine for classes, but how do you map individuals without
> metadata side-effects?
> Looking at my previous answer again I think I should take another run
> at
> this  :-)
> One way of thinking about equivalence is in terms of substitution: if
> :x
> :equiv :y when is it safe to substitute :x with :y?
> The default is: it's not safe (obviously).
> :x equivalentClass :y -> safe when used as a class (e.g. rdf:type :x)
> :x sameAs :y -> always safe (watch out!)
> :x sameConceptAs :y -> safe in subject positions
> :x sameWorkAs :y -> safe for author, creation date
> :x sameManifestationAs :y -> safe for the the above, and length (?)

Those types of relations would work for me as they are just simple entailment in the non-general case, and for sameAs people know how to interpret that now already.

How would I formally represent a specification that sameWorkAs implies you can substitute :x with :y for all ":x dc:creator :z ." statements after defining :x sameWorkAs :y? Is it possible with current grammars?

Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 20:04:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:42 UTC