- From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:24:36 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=SusWFeGCVk8DRCe+Lm=Tjc4H-XnyZHauPrb2Td6GG_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Indeed, it even frees you up to determine what semantics you need in that context. A property chain is pretty simple to write... Jim On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote: > On 3/15/13 3:18 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > > This is a useful solution, but doesn't address issues that arise when Gu > or Gj contain owl:sameAs triples, but the authors of those graphs didn't > actually mean the full OWL semantics by it. In the provenance WG, we have > come up with two relations that are sameAs-like, but no not have the full > owl:sameAs semantics: > > prov:specializationOf > IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf > > An entity that is a specialization of another shares all aspects of the > latter, and additionally presents more specific aspects of the same thing > as the latter. In particular, the lifetime of the entity being specialized > contains that of any specialization. Examples of aspects include a time > period, an abstraction, and a context associated with the entity. > > prov:alternateOf > IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf > > Two alternate entities present aspects of the same thing. These aspects > may be the same or different, and the alternate entities may or may not > overlap in time. > > I think that these are more appropriate for Linked Data applications, > since they are "looser" semantically, than owl:sameAs. > > > Your relation semantics can go in a specific named graph ("context lenses" > so to speak). You then use these named graph as the source of the inference > rules that are conditionally invoked for your desired world-view. > > Kingsley > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote: > >> I did not find this a rookie question at all. >> >> This seems to get to the heart of some of the real difficult issues in >> Semantic Web. >> >> My perspective is different from yours, and a resource description that I >> author is a description of the resource from my perspective; a resource >> description that you author is a description from your perspective. >> >> If I have some detailed application that depends in some subtle way on my >> description, I may want to ignore your version; on the other hand, a third >> party might want to use both of our points of view. >> >> One way of tacking this problem is to have three graphs for this case: >> >> Gj, Gu, G= >> >> Gj contains triples describing my point of view >> Gu contains triples describing your point of view >> G= contains the owl:sameAs triples >> >> Then, in some application contexts, we use Gj, sometimes Gu, and >> sometimes all three. >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for the quick answer : ) >> > >> > So this issue is that subjective for contexts which allows to use >> owl:sameAs to link resources if they are not semantically even a little >> bit related in real world? >> > >> > Sorry if I'm asking too basic questions. I'm still a rookie at this :D >> > >> > Umutcan >> > >> > >> > On 15-03-2013 19:38, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >> On 3/15/13 1:05 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK wrote: >> >>> My question is, does LODD use owl:sameAs properly? For instance, are >> those two resources, dbpedia:Metamizole and drugbank:DB04817 (code for >> Metamizole), really identical? Or am I getting the word "property" in the >> paper wrong? >> >> The question is always about: do those URIs denote the same thing? Put >> differently, do the two URIs have a common referent? >> >> >> >> ## Turtle ## >> >> >> >> <#i> owl:sameAs <#you>. >> >> >> >> ## End ## >> >> >> >> That's a relation in the form of a 3-tuple based statement that >> carries entailment consequences for a reasoner that understand the relation >> semantics. Through some "context lenses" the statement above could be >> accurate, in others totally inaccurate. >> >> >> >> Conclusion, beauty lies eternally in the eyes of the beholder :-) >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436 > http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu > > PhD Student > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > mccusj@cs.rpi.edu > http://tw.rpi.edu > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 21:25:29 UTC