- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:53:35 +0100
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, "semantic-web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3c.org>, public-lod@w3.org
> If the best data / tools you have suggest that two docs/datasets are > describing the selfsame entity, using owl:sameAs seems fine, even if you > have a secret hunch you're only perhaps 95% confident of the data quality or > tool reliability. If the best information you have instead is telling you > "these two documents seem to be talking about more or less the same notion", > then owl:sameAs probably isn't for you: it doesn't communicate what you > know. Which of these situations you're in might be something of a judgement > call, but it should be a judgement call grounded in clarity about what a use > of owl:sameAs is claiming. Just jumping on that part. My particular use-case is that I have an algorithm to automatically derive owl:sameAs between two datasets [1]. This algorithm gives a really low-rate of false-positives after evaluation. However, whenever this tool publish an owl:sameAs statement, it has a "confidence" associated with it. Is there any "standard" way to publish this confidence, as well as the sameAs statement? I can also think about further data that I may want to publish and which I can quantify the accuracy (eg. RDF statements derived from audio or video content). Cheers! y [1] http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2008/papers/18-raimond-sutton-automatic-interlinking.pdf
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:54:13 UTC