Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal

On 6/22/12 4:41 PM, Jason Douglas wrote:
> Which of those corresponds to the "same real-world entity"?  I guess I 
> could see Thing/equivalentThing as an alternative name.

Great question! That's the eternal problem. Two real-world entities (in 
the eyes of a beholder) might be perceived to be the same by virtue of:

1. their names (denotation)
2. their content
3. some other nebulous basis.

In my world view, I would identify equivalents based on their names, as 
long as my name choices are unambiguous in my realm of perception. Thus, 
when the Web is the medium, Hyperlinks (URIs) serve as a cost-effective 
mechanism for achieving my goals.

Kingsley
>
> -jason
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/22/12 11:21 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>         The idea is similar to W3C's existing 'owl:sameAs'
>         relationship, but
>         more flexible / loose, since with schema.org
>         <http://schema.org> markup (and
>         rdfa/microdata in general) it is very common to see mixing of
>         identifiers for things, and identifiers for
>         pages-about-those-things.
>
>         Basically all sameThingAs says is, "whether these are direct or
>         indirect identifiers doesn't matter for now; they point to the
>         single,
>         same real-world entity".
>
>     So you want:
>
>     Equivalence by Name -- sameAs
>     Equivalence by Value -- content equivalence basically
>     Equivalence by Intent -- nebulous layer above which could carry
>     the semantics you seek i.e., the are loosely equivalent in some
>     way understood by the claim maker, at best.
>
>     Thus, Instead of "same" you would have "equivalent" where the
>     other equivalences become subproperties that hook nicely into the
>     pattern already established re. rdf:type.
>
>     So you have:
>
>     equivalentByName
>     equivalentByValue
>     equivalentByIntent.
>
>     "same" is a problem vector for those that see the label and then
>     interpret relationship semantics literally. You've already seen
>     the distraction it creates for Linked Data :-)
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen
>     Founder & CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>     <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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