- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:07:48 +0100
- To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "semantic-web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
On Jul 8, 2008, at 10:45 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: [snip] > It is not that well defined in the owl specs as far as I can tell. It's very precisely defined. Whether that is well defined in your lights I can't say :) > 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. Which document? Some of the documents (e.g., reference, guide) aren't normative. > 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. I need a pointer before i can begin to decipher. > 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? OWL has no distinction between external and local. > It doesn't seem so crisp for me unfortunately > with its implicit "there will be no problems with reasoning past this > stage" attitude. I don't know what you mean here. In OWL DL, sameAs is exactly equality (in a first order logic sense). (Well, there's a slight issue with annotations.) There's a somewhat extended notion in OWL Full (roughly, hilog semantics). > If people want a term that they can use without owl reasoning to > define useful real-world-identity based mappings sameAs isn't an identify based mapping, it is *identity*. > between RDF > Resources, where can they go to look? There's definitely a gap. > If they aren't being shown > anywhere and no one in the any semantic group Aren't they part of a 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. Meh. Your use of traditionalist in a pejorative sense isn't helpful. First, people *do* use sameAs for the semantics (to some degree). But often those semantics are wrong. People champion that use. I think that's a mistake. It can seriously bite you on the butt as you add more expressivity. If you don't ever use more expressivity it won't (perhaps). One can only tackle so many issues at a time. I try to give some info so people, instead of using what I think is the wrong thing, can figure out something better. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 22:08:30 UTC