Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data

2008/7/9 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2008, at 22:57, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't been following the "deprecate URIs" thread, so forgive me if
>>> I'm being repetitious.
>>> 1. everything is contextual.  But that's no excuse for being sloppy with
>>> meanings.
>>> 2. ambiguity is not inevitable -- it is avoided by clearly identifying
>>> context.
>>> 2. OWL:SameAs (like mKR:is) means identical -- two names (aliases) which
>>> mean the same thing.  Let's not corrupt the meaning of this term.
>>
>> +500000
>>
>> I keep meaning to start a thread against the mapping use of sameAs. It
>> causes a lot of issues as you move to greater expressivity.
>
> There was recently an extensive thread about it,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/0078.html
> "Managing co-reference".
>
> I keep meaning to engage more with that, because I'm also worried about
> seeing the vividly crisp meaning of owl:sameAs weakened to mean "kinda sorta
> mostly same-ish thing, for most purposes".  The idea floating for an
> 'rdf:sameAs' also filled me with dread.
>
> Call me old fashioned, but owl:sameAs means what it means as defined in the
> OWL specs. If people are going to miss-use it, I'd rather they did so by
> admitting they're publishing possibly-false-claims, than by trying to
> stretch and bend it to have some new "as used in real life" vaguer meaning.

It is not that well defined in the owl specs as far as I can tell. At
least not with examples of where it can be used and where it can't be
used. One of the examples relates a football ontology to a soccer
ontology. Does this mean that individuals defined in the soccer
ontology will be able to be reasoned on using the football ontology as
is? Do individuals from the soccer ontology have to have all of the
property names that the football ontology has so that owl reasoning
will work, in which case they would be exactly the same ontology
effectively with only a different name for one thing. Why doesn't the
owl spec define these cases which are very clearly the first step for
trying to reason with an externally defined object as if it were a
locally defined one? It doesn't seem so crisp for me unfortunately
with its implicit "there will be no problems with reasoning past this
stage" attitude.

If people want a term that they can use without owl reasoning to
define useful real-world-identity based mappings between RDF
Resources, where can they go to look? If they aren't being shown
anywhere and no one in the any semantic group is giving them
directions they will continue to use the one that everyone else is
using, ie, sameAs, much to a traditionalists disgust I expect.

Cheers,

Peter

Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 21:46:27 UTC