> On Mar 25, 2024, at 4:54 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > As I wrote, :enrico identifies the name of a person, and it does not identify a person. How can this be squared with the assertion :enrico :born-in :rome ? A name is not born in a city. > Generated graph-2: > > << :b1 | :enrico :born-on 1962 >> :location :rome . > << :b2 | :mary :born-on 1962 >> :location :rome . This doesn’t look right to me. A birth certificate doesn’t have a location, the *birth* has a location. But the ID here seems to identify the birth certificate (as it is used as the primary key for "BIRTH-CERTIFICATE”?). And there’s an asymmetry in that :born-on is a property of the name, while :location is a property of the reification (in this case, I guess that’s really mean to be a property of the brith certificate?) I am not convinced by this example at all. The modeling seems incomprehensible to me. Beyond the modeling issues, though, I think this is a fundamental problem: > Two departments decide to expose this data as LOD, but in different ways. Why should we expect sensible data to result if two different departments use the same *universal* identifiers to model data in different ways? Of course this will lead to bad or confusing data. Thanks, Greg
Received on Monday, 25 March 2024 15:28:18 UTC