Re: implied datasets

The thing is, using semantics of predicates is kinda hard. Joining on 
URIs is dead easy.

Where possible make it easy.

On 23/05/11 18:17, glenn mcdonald wrote:
>
>     That may be so but it misses the point. The point is there is a field,
>     be it a URI or a literal however modelled, that can be used to join
>     between two datasets. This join field is "hidden" in that there exists
>     no (known) dataset that contains all possible values it can take on.
>
>
> Hmm. I'm still not getting why this is a problem. It seems like as 
> long as the ISSNs in both datasets are represented by nodes with 
> type-assignments, all you have to assert is that the two types are 
> equivalent (e.g. same URIs, or owl:equivalentClass...), and that their 
> rdfs:labels uniquely define them (e.g. 
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty...). I don't (yet) see why you need an 
> imaginary extra dataset in between.

-- 
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

/ Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
/ Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton, http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
/ Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/