- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:41:43 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: "Lassila, Ora" <ora@amazon.com>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
>> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :date 1962 . >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :location :rome . >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :location :rome . >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :date 1962 . > > It helps with the issue of naming, but it doesn’t address the asymmetry. Now Enrico has married-in and married-on properties, and the reification has date and location properties. Why is this a good model of properties that all come from the same relation where they are all properties of birth certificates? They are not: has married-in and married-on have domain person, while date and location have domain birth certificate. They NEED to be distinct properties, and depending on what are you talking about (people or birth certificates) you use the former of the latter. > And I still think this is a fundamental problem with this example: “two departments decide to expose this data as LOD, but in different ways.” That would be one thing if they were each exposing LOD using local identifiers, but they’ve both used the universal identifiers (b1, b2, …) for the reification in incompatible ways. They are not incompatible. You are assuming that organisations are rational entities that structure their data in a syntactically uniform and consistent way all over the world. The fact that this assumption is not true is witnessed by the mess that enterprises have in doing data integration, which is the main raison d’être of semantic web technologies: deal with syntactically different ways of representing semantically equivalent information. —e.
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2024 07:41:49 UTC