- From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:32:59 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: David Baxter <retxabd@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Dan, > Certainly a useful concept to have name(s) for, ... but I think not > quite what is needed to link these specific datasets. The W3C wordnet > data is a collection of descriptions of linguistic concepts. The > OpenCyc things they're linked to are not linguistic entities, but the > real world things the words are associated with. So they're not > near-identical similar objects, but things that are generally from > disjoint classes. Paris the place, vs "Paris" the word (or the set of > synonymous words _for_ Paris...). I think this is a distinction worth > keeping reasonably explicit. Sorry, I probably haven't been clear with my email (at least, Mike told me I was not ;)) I *was not suggesting* to use it, but probably more a subpropertyof seeAlso (even though, this is probably not the right one as a super property). Why I did talk about umbel:isLike is to make people aware of its existence to try not over-using owl:sameAs where there is uncertainty in the linkage of instances of classes. But I agree that this "umbel:isLike" property shouldn't be used in this case for the reason you described above. And I do agree that these two instances belongs to disjoint classes (at least it was my interpretation of a wn:NounSynset and a opencyc:IndependantCountry). Sorry for not having been clear in my first email. Thanks, Take care, Fred
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 20:34:01 UTC