W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009


From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:55:05 +0100
Message-ID: <D72AF46149B1D74FBC8CD7090ED2446BF5D024@EMAIL.ordsvy.gov.uk>
To: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

> > Owl:sameAs is used very liberally - maybe used of owl:disjoint will 
> > spot a few errors. But could it be that owl:sameAs is used 
> liberally 
> > because the classes are not fully defined enough to give 
> people enough 
> > information to make the right links?
> I was thinking more of this issue: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0071.html
> re. slide 26. I've seen this done too, and it's quite concerning.

Ouch! Yes that is also a big issue and one I've seen done too many
> I think there's a real question about whether you want data 
> providers mandating entailment regimes over their data

Maybe to some extent. I'd like to make it clear what I mean by a certain
class and/or property in an ontology, and hence I would mandate
entailment based on that...but I'd also be happy with other people to
add extra (logically consistent?!) entailment regimes on top of those if


This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505

Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 10:55:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC