- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:55:05 -0400
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-ID: <514398B9.2060207@openlinksw.com>
On 3/15/13 4:40 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: > I think Jim's solution looks to me like the best realistic one going > forward … having somewhat looser variants of owl:sameAs and ask people > to be a bit honest with their use of sameAs … > > For Alan's approach, I feel a problem is that what we are doing is > making an approximate model of the world, not a completely accurate copy. > Alan is of course correct that the description and the thing are > different, and if we want to be precise we would make that clear, and > failing to make this distinction may lead us into trouble; but > whenever we say anything about anything, the things we didn't say > greatly out-number the things we did say, and making a judgment as to > what is important is hard, and people will get it wrong. > > I think most people, most of the time, do not want to be bothered > saying, "Well this is my opinion, and your opinion may differ, and > believe me if you wish" …. which is what making the careful > distinction between the thing and its description amounts to. > > So IMO, Alan is correct, but somehow missing the point. > > Jeremy Attempting address a variety of issues associated with this thread, via links to posts that include live demo links: 1. http://bit.ly/Y6TIfs -- a note demonstrating the use owl:InverseFunctional relation semantics, conditionally 2. http://bit.ly/UydU9t -- similar exercise whereby FOAF and vCard are mapped 3. http://bit.ly/WmKlJ0 -- similar exercise overtly covering symmetry, inverseOf (quietly demonstrating transitivity) 4. http://bit.ly/YgLgtk -- looking for ontologies that define a "Likes" relation from a Virtuoso instance hosting 55 Billion+ triples. Kingsley > > > > On Mar 15, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Alan Ruttenberg > <alanruttenberg@gmail.com <mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> There's another perspective, which is to to distinguish descriptions >> of things from the things themselves. This works if you can agree on >> identity of the thing but not necessarily on the way to describe it. >> As an example, consider the class of cars manufactured by Nissan >> (call it Cn). If you can agree on a URI for that class, you can each >> write descriptions that have foaf:primaryTopic Cn. >> >> Depending on how careful you want to be, you can then use one or two >> graphs. If you have your predicate relate descriptions then you can >> use a single graph. For example instead of having a predicate >> hasNumberOfDoors that relates cars to a count of doors you can >> have describedHasNumberOfDoors that relates a description of a car >> to a number with the interpretation that the author of the >> description asserts that the car has 4 doors. >> >> Or, if you want to make assertions about the car, then use two >> graphs. Each can make statements of the sort [isPrimaryTopicOf >> <description>] hasNumberOfDoors 4. Since we are talking now about the >> cars, there could be different perspectives, so to control that you >> put each author's assertions in a different graph. >> >> I think this is a better strategy than using sameAs. There are a >> bunch of problems with sameAs, not least of which is that often the >> assertions are incorrect - they mean something different, Jim's post >> gives a strategy to relate them without using sameAs, but I'd assert >> that general ways of relating descriptions takes more than a couple >> of relations, and should be an orthogonal problem. With the >> primaryTopic method I suggest the relationship that matters for your >> application - that the descriptions are pointing to the same thing, >> is explicit, and doesn't need new predicates, though it does require >> some level of coordination. >> >> Best, >> Alan >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com >> <mailto:s.umutcan@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> That made it clear, thanks again. I'm sure it will be helpful for >> other developers either in the future. >> >> Umutcan >> >> >> On 15-03-2013 20:29, Jeremy J Carroll 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 <mailto: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 :-) >> >> >> >> >> > -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 21:55:28 UTC