W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2009

Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:44:46 +0000
Message-Id: <53246336-A119-4B36-A58A-DCA55F597752@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:41 UTC