- From: Afraz Jaffri <afraz.jaffri@tiscali.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:45:19 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
- To: kidehen@openlinksw.com
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
Sorry, the link i gave was to the HTML description,the URI of the resource is http://os.rkbexplorer.com/id/osr7000000000017765 then: [aoj04r@cohen ~]$ curl -I -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" http://os. rkbexplorer.com/id/osr7000000000017765 HTTP/1.1 303 See Other Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:44:10 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.9 Location: /data/osr7000000000017765 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Afraz. Afraz Jaffri wrote: > We are pleased to announce a Linked Data site for the Ordnance Survey, > available at: > > http://os.rkbexplorer.com > > with links from over 8000 URIs to Geonames URIs. Take 'Hampshire' as > an example: > Afraz, > http://os.rkbexplorer.com/description/osr7000000000017765 > > kidehen$ curl -I -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" http://os.rkbexplorer.com/description/osr7000000000017765 HTTP/1.1 406 Not Acceptable Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:31:35 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Connection: close Why no 303 or use of <link rel="[relavant-predicate]" .../> so that User Agents can locate <http://os.rkbexplorer. com/data/osr7000000000017765> . My issues are summarized here: http://demo.openlinksw.com/rdfbrowser2/?uri%5B%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fos. rkbexplorer.com%2Fdescription%2Fosr7000000000017765&uri%5B%5D=http%3A% 2F%2Fos.rkbexplorer.com%2Fdata%2Fosr7000000000017765& Kingsley > It might also be the right time, with all the owl:sameAs discussion, > to practically demonstrate how our coreference system works. In the > above example the link created is between 'Hampshire the county' from > the OS and 'Hampshire the second order administrative division' from > Geonames. We do not know if these two entities are exactly the same, > so instead of using owl:sameAs we use our own coref:duplicate > predicate. > > One of the features of our system is that knowledge about coreference > is separated from the knowledge of the actual entity. In the RDF for > the above URI at http://os.rkbexplorer.com/data/osr7000000000017765 > you > will find: > > <coref:coreferenceData rdf:resource="http://os.rkbexplorer. > com/crs/osr7000000000017765"/> > > Resolving this URI will give you a 'bundle' containing the duplicates: > > <coref:Bundle> > <coref:canon rdf:resource="http://os.rkbexplorer. > com/id/osr7000000000017765"/> > <coref:duplicate rdf:resource="http://os.rkbexplorer. > com/id/osr7000000000017765" /> > <coref:duplicate rdf:resource="http://sws.geonames.org/2647554/" /> > <coref:lastUpdated>2008-07-10 11:39:44</coref:lastUpdated> > </coref:Bundle> > > As you can see one URI is chosen as the canonical URI to use. The > separation of coreference means, to a limited extent, that the context > of duplication can be preserved. If I wanted to say that under some > other context there were other URIs that were deemed to be the same > then I can simply create another bundle with another <coref: > coreferenceData> predicate in the RDF for the entity. Of course, the > question of how to show the context is yet to be solved... > > There may be some errors in the equivalences. All feedback is > greatfully received :) > > In relation to another question about how owl:sameAs is currently > being used, there are some examples in our LDOW paper: > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15181/ > > in particular http://dbpedia.org/resource/Welsh and http://dbpedia. > org/resource/Lilac > > Regards, > Afraz > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] >> > On > >> Behalf Of Harry Halpin >> Sent: 09 July 2008 10:55 >> To: Hugh Glaser >> Cc: Bijan Parsia; Peter Ansell; semantic-web at W3C; public-lod@w3. >> > org > >> Subject: Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data >> >> >> Hugh Glaser wrote: >> >>> Thanks guys, a really interesting and important discussion. >>> However, after the last couple of postings I have the feeling I >>> > may > >> agree >> >>> with both of you. >>> Is that possible? >>> >>> >> Bijan et. al. are right about the semantics of owl:sameAs, but as >> > I've > >> said before, I think that something weaker needs to be coined >> ("lod:equivalentTo") that states that two URIs refer to the same >> > thing > >> but that any semantic entailments *may* not hold (i.e. user beware). >> That's a dangerous thing, I agree, but it seems to be what the >> > Linked > >> Data community needs and what's happening organically in the wild >> > with > >> the (ab)use of owl:sameAs. >> >> >>> Hugh >>> >>> >>> > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Free games for a wet weekend - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Free games for a wet weekend - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com __________________________________________________________ Free games for a wet weekend - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play __________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2008 10:53:12 UTC