- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:25:08 +0200
- To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz42KOm7dbM21_Vmhdony0xK1QYaEEyii+BFbMj=aUbEFGw@mail.gmail.com>
[snip] > It is tricky - I've been confusing myself for the last couple of days at > least! So if we _do_ conflate the real world thing (e.g. Eddystone > Lighthouse) and the discerned feature (e.g. Eddystone Lighthouse seen as > a vertical obstruction) then it would be acceptable to use <owl:sameAs> > with no need for the "sameRealWorldEntityAs" property; e.g. ... > > <http://example.com/sar/features/vo/EDY> owl:sameAs < > http://example.org/maritime/navaid/2650253> . > > This would align with the common approach used in Linked Data where > (authoritative) identifiers are reused across different domains, datasets > and applications with the view to providing common "nodes" in the > "knowledge graph". The BP doc actively encourages such reuse of identifiers > (assuming that the data publisher / curator can be 100% sure that the > identifier identifies the thing they're making statements about!). For > example, we might want to encourage folks to reuse the identifier for > Eddystone Lighthouse minted by Google for the Knowledge Graph: < > https://g.co/kg/m/013qr8> (which I think is derived from an older > Freebase identifier) > > If I've interpreted correctly (as above), then I will try to include a > Note in the BP document alluding to feature discernment and the related > cognitive process. > > Jeremy > We have to be very careful with recommending owl:sameAs for identifying equivalence of resources (individuals). This page <http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Overloading_OWL_sameAs> (Overloading OWL sameAs) summarizes discussion about owl:sameAs in the semweb community years ago and it specifically says that linking a thing with data about that thing with owl:sameAs is abuse of owl:sameAs. The paper When owl:sameAs isn't the Same: An Analysis of Identity in Linked Data <https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21> goes further and says that when two resources are linked by owl:sameAs they are expected to have the same properties, and "[..] any statement that is given to a single URI is true for every other URI that has an owl:sameAs link". The reason that a satisfactory solution to asserting resource equivalence did not seem available on the web was the reason the use case Modelling In The Construction Sector <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModellingInTheConstructionSector> was contributed, with its deriverd Subject equality requirement <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SubjectEquality> . Regards, Frans
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 15:25:40 UTC