Re: Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)

Hi Jeremy,

> So, on the example of:
> [[
> a city as from Cyc to a wikipedia article of that city
> ]]
> a list of all such correspondences, between Cyc and wikipedia, might 
> be a great thing to have in a mash-up, and by all means use owl:sameAs.
> But keep that list in a separate graph from other data, and I can load 
> it for a mash-up, and not for a different application in which such 
> loose thinking is not appropriate. Also, the more metadata we provide 
> about the metadata we provide, the easier it will be for applications 
> to make such choices, so being able to label a graph of somewhat dodgy 
> equivalences, as a graph of somewhat dodgy equivalences, in a 
> vocabulary that had sufficent deployment, would help.


I really like your answers and thinking here.

It is for that reason that I always say that the linkage between umbel 
subject concepts and external ontologies classes belong to umbel's 
world. So, the inferencing between all subject concepts and external 
ontologies classes is consistent within umbel (at least, we try to keep 
it consistent ;) ). You use it if it fits your needs; you forget about 
it otherwise. So, umbel has its own representation of the World,  but it 
is not the only representation of this same World :)


Thanks!


Take care,


Fred

Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 11:37:54 UTC