- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:33:06 +0100
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On 1 Oct 2007, at 11:20, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 01/10/2007, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> The OWLED task force on DatabasEsque features: >>> http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/DatabasEsque >>> >>> Well, at least Uli and me, have been doing a bit of work on keys >>> (aka, inverseFunctional datatype properties) prompted by a visit to >>> Manchester by Matthew Pocock. Some sort of keys is a pretty high >>> value feature. > > Hi Bijan, > > Quick question, would these 'legitimise', and enable OWL tools to > work with > foaf:mbox_sha1sum (allowing person-identity smushing as with > foaf:mbox, which is an ObjectProperty IFP)? Ideally, yes. That is one of the use cases. One bit of research I've not yet done is to survey the smushing code out there and see how closely it aligns with what we're proposing. My sense, based on my old understanding of how smushing generally works, is that it's pretty much the same, i.e., missing keys aren't a problem, same key causes a merge, multiple keys are ok (i.e., no functional constraints), explicit values only, etc. The big difference is that FOAF typically works on bnode subjects, which, under standard BNode semantics are existential variables, thus wouldn't (technically speaking) fall under our proposal. However, the common, deployed semantics for BNodes is that they are local names, not existential variables. SPARQL treats them that way. RIF shall as well, I'm pretty sure. SPARQL/OWL probably will. So, we should work that fact into the proposal as well. HTHs. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 10:31:54 UTC