Re: Deprecating owl:sameAs

As someone who looked fairly deeply into owl:sameAs use, the problem is not
fatal but is endemic. Nonetheless about 1/3 of the sameAs usages are
actually more or less similarity and better handled by statistics. The rest
require likely domain specific predicates. Logic and the world do not layer
easily. I am certain the problem of 'owl:butReallySameAs' would inherit the
same issues. Nonetheless more research is needed.
On Apr 1, 2016 10:07 AM, "Aldo Gangemi" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:

> Hi, I think you are just noticing the effects of real life when logic gets
> actually used. All predicates can get misused, because their semantics
> cannot be just syntactically checked, it depends on the intentions and
> practices of modellers and users of applications.
>
> On the other hand, there are already other predicates that can be used,
> such as rdfs:seeAlso, skos:closeMatch, etc., let alone probabilistic and
> fuzzy varieties of OWL for reasoning in presence of uncertainties of
> various kinds.
>
> I’d rather keep the problem of creating vocabularies separate from that of
> cleaning up existing data. The second can be done for specific needs (see
> e.g. a recent paper by Heiko Paulheim and myself on scalable DBpedia
> cleanup [1]), while the dream of a global consistent semantic web is
> unsustainable, owl:sameAs or anything not the same of a different sameness
> :)
>
> Ciao
> Aldo
>
> [http://www.heikopaulheim.com/docs/iswc2015.pdf]
>
> > On 01 Apr 2016, at 15:32, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 1 Apr 2016, at 14:01, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is overwhelming research [1, 2, 3] and I think it is evident at
> this point that owl:sameAs is used inarticulately in the LOD cloud.
> >>
> >> The research that I've done makes me conclude that we need to do a
> massive sweep of the LOD cloud and adopt owl:sameSameButDifferent.
> >>
> >> I think the terminology is human-friendly enough that there will be
> minimal confusion down the line, but for the the pedants among us, we can
> define it along the lines of:
> >>
> >>
> >> The built-in OWL property owl:sameSameButDifferent links things to
> things. Such an owl:sameSameButDifferent statement indicates that two URI
> references actually refer to the same thing but may be different under some
> circumstances.
> >
> > What you need is mereologial logic so that you can start speaking of
> things overlapping, being mostly the same, etc...
> > See Slide 26 of Jim Hendler's talk ( and the whole set of slides)
> > "On Beyond OWL: challenges for ontologies on the Web"
> >
> >
> http://www.slideshare.net/jahendler/on-beyond-owl-challenges-for-ontologies-on-the-web
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21
> >> [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/coreconcepts#terms_sameAs
> >> [3] http://schema.org/sameAs
> >>
> >> -Sarven
> >> http://csarven.ca/#i
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>