Re: Clarification required: BP6 "use HTTP URIs for spatial things"


I totally agree with your comments about being careful with <owl:sameAs>!

I've re-read the construction sector use case and think that this is
related to the topic that @robatkinson raised in his email [1]. See my
response [2].

I think that it is important that we can distinguish between the various
"representations" of a spatial thing - both when requesting a particular
representation from a server that can provide multiple representations or
when trying to determine what representation a server is able (or willing)
to provide.



On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 16:25 Frans Knibbe <> wrote:

> [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. ...
>>     <> owl:sameAs <
>>> .
>> 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: <
>>> (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
> <>
> (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 <> 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
> <> was
> contributed, with its deriverd Subject equality requirement
> <>
> .
> Regards,
> Frans

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 16:19:40 UTC