- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:35:25 -0400
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <534819CD.4070305@openlinksw.com>
On 4/11/14 12:03 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 4/11/14 11:42 AM, Justin Boyan wrote: >> I'm going to +1 Dan's first post on this thread, where he suggested >> reusing sameAs for this purpose and not introducing a new top-level >> property. >> >> sameAs already exists to allow linking to a reference page for an >> entity, like its Wikipedia page, Freebase page, or website (DNS >> registry page). The social sites motivating the 'hasAccount' proposal >> -- Facebook, Twitter, G+, LinkedIn, etc. -- can equally be viewed as >> catalogs of entities. The issue of who controls the data for that >> entity on the site is a slippery issue that wouldn't be captured in >> the account vs. sameAs distinction anyway. >> >> In fact, sameAs is actually clearer semantically than 'hasAccount': >> an organization like the BBC with many Twitter accounts might be >> tempted to list all of them under 'hasAccount', whereas sameAs more >> clearly limits the desired link to just the top-level account for the >> BBC as a whole. (Twitter accounts for suborganizations of the BBC >> would be better modeled via sameAs links from entities corresponding >> to those suborganizations.) >> >> I don't see any particular semantic gain from { BBC hasAccount >> twitter.com/BBC <http://twitter.com/BBC> } compared to { BBC sameAs >> twitter.com/BBC <http://twitter.com/BBC> }. >> >> Whereas, I'm concerned that webmasters will become ever more confused >> when they have to worry about hasAccount alongside the existing >> sameAs, url, and @id on every single schema.org <http://schema.org> type. >> >> My $0.02. >> Justin > Justin, > > I assumed "account" and my suggested "hasAccount" denoted actual > "account ownership" oriented relations i.e., relationship properties > that determine how two entities are associated. In short, my entry > into this thread was all to do with providing counter points to some > arguments about unambiguous vs ambiguous entity denotation, using HTTP > URIs. > > Of course I wouldn't be suggesting "account" or "hasAccount" as > identifiers for coreference relations. > > 'same as', 'sameAs', :sameAs, <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs>, > are different kinds of identifiers that denote age-old coreference > relations. The only issue is whether inference and reasoning on these > relations is scoped to: > > 1. humans > 2. machines > 3. both. > > Hope this clarifies my position :-) Just to close the loop re., comments above. Here is a more readable link to a document that describes the owl:sameAs relation [1]. [1] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/2002/07/owl%01sameAs -- owl:sameAs relation [2] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl%23sameAs&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl -- ditto but with faceted navigation over relations, as an interaction option . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 16:35:48 UTC