- From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:22:52 -0400
- To: Michael Erdmann <erdmann@diqa-pm.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALcEXf6h5PveLFo+yC-u_w9jjR0PerRLw9n6H3mYApcGbTsTCw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Michael Erdmann <erdmann@diqa-pm.com>wrote: > On 28.03.2013 06:18, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: > > I rather liked the GOTO/owl:sameAs presentation … > and I am not sure that the problem can be explained away as modeling errors. > To me it does seem that there is a case to answer … modeling is necessarily approximate and it is not realistic to expect equality up to some approximation to be an equivalence relation. > Yet the Semantic Web is about linking together many somewhat approximate models. > > Agreed, but owl:sameAs, has a very strict semantics and cannot be > mis-interpreted. There are other, better fitting standardized properties > which have fewer implications but nevertheless, are grounded in the OWL > semantics. The SKOS specification introduces mapping properties to align > concepts [1]. The spec says: > > "The property skos:exactMatch is used to link two concepts, indicating a > high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used interchangeably > across a wide range of information retrieval applications. skos:exactMatch > is a transitive property ... and an instance of owl:SymmetricProperty" > > The effect of A owl:sameAs B is, that A and B become two names for the > same thing, thus statements about A and B are merged and provenance > information is lost. After stating A skos:exactMatch B (and also A > skos:closeMatch B, for that matter) there are still two things with > statements about them coming from different sources. > > Thus, there is nothing wrong with the semantics of owl:sameAs, only in the > way it is used. We should try to use more appropriate language in our RDF > models, in order for application developers to create useful applications > that interpret the models in a standards-conform way. In the end, that is > why we have (and want) a formally defined semantics of a language. > > +1 m. > > I also rather liked the title because I used a similar title on the 9th of November, 1989, at a presentation in Saarbrücken, Germany. My title was [Graph] "unification considered harmful". Given the date and location it was the least well chosen title I have ever used. > > LOL > > michael (from Germany ;) > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#mapping > > Jeremy J Carroll > Principal Architect > Syapse, Inc. > > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Michael Erdmann | erdmann@diqa-pm.com | +49 151 6140 1790 > > DIQA Projektmanagement GmbH | Pfinztalstr 90 | 76227 Karlsruhe | Germany > Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 715454 | USt-IdNr: DE283037270 > Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Erdmann, Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf. Daniel Hansch > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > -- Michel Dumontier Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest Group http://dumontierlab.com
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 13:23:42 UTC