Re: Is the same video but in different encodings the owl:sameAs?

Quick and dirty proposal in the spirit of the previous messages

resourceV is a video
resourceV has a presentation here <http://ex.org/video.mp4>
resourceV has a presentation here <http://ex.org/video.ogv>
resourceV a ma:MediaResource .
resourceV ma:title "Sample Video" .
resourceV ma:description "Sample Description" .

And if you have an ontology, you can specify that a presentation of a
resource share some properties with it
if A is a presentation of R, the the title of A is the same of the title of
R

What I have named resourceV  could be <http://ex.org/video> if you can use
this URI in your context

--
Jean-Claude Moissinac



2013/12/4 Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

>
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi again,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply, Kingsley.
> >
> >> <http://ex.org/video.mp4> denotes one entity.
> >> <http://ex.org/video.ogv> denotes another.
> >
> > We agree on that. I guess my question boils down to "how to avoid
> > having to make duplicate statements about each resource"? I cannot
> > take your proposed <#CapturedEventNameX> as a "proxy" entity, as it is
> > not a video, but an event.
> >
> > My argument was more: take any random user and let them view the .ogv
> > and the .mp4 versions of the video, and if they say it is the same
> > (which random users most probably will do, as the visual and the
> > audial contents are the same), the two versions can be considered
> > owl:sameAs.
> >
> > One version may, e.g., have more details (say, due to the bit rate)
> > than the other, just like the two entities below are considered
> > owl:sameAs, even if one _may_ have more, or more accurate, facts than
> > the other…
> >
> > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/London> owl:sameAs
> > <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en.london>
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> The official semantics of owl:sameAs is that the two IRIs on either side
> of it refer to the very same thing. So it is fine for one of them to link
> to something with more facts than the other, but those facts have to be
> facts **about the same thing** out there in the world (such as London,
> capital city of the UK). A good test of whether an owl:sameAs triple is
> correct would be, can you say *anything* using the subject URI that would
> not be true if you said it with the object URI, or vice versa? If not, then
> that might be (probably is) a good sameAs. But if you can, then it is
> definitely not a good sameAs. This is a stronger test than your "same
> movie" test. Owl:sameAs is "same movie, same edition, same creation date,
> same anything you can think of". It is the absolute, final, in-the-limit
> absolutely-one-and-the-same identical relationship, and it does not allow
> for any "yes, but" or 'well, nearly" or "in a sense, but not in another
> sense" or "well, for all practical purposes" qualifications.
>
> But as I say, that is the *official* semantics.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tom
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc.
> > http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >
> iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>