- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:44:46 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On 26 Mar 2009, at 11:01, David Booth wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 21:34 -0400, David Booth wrote: >> [ . . . ] the important criterion for using owl:sameAs are: (a) >> in *your* RDF graph the two terms are intended to denote the *same* >> individual; and (b) your RDF graph is consisistent with their >> definitions. [ . . . . ] > > After writing the above I realized that it may sound like I am saying > that it is okay to use owl:sameAs indiscriminately in cases where a > weaker assertion would do. As many have pointed out owl:sameAs is > likely to cause problems when graphs are merged, which I illustrated: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2009Mar/0169.html > For example, graphs G1 and G2 individually use owl:sameAs without > problem, but they are inconsistent when merged. [snip] Credit when credit is due...this all sounds much less naive than the earlier stuff. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 11:45:23 UTC