Re: Deprecating owl:sameAs

Sarven, your April Fool’s provocation started a really serious thread ;)

> On 01 Apr 2016, at 18:15, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It's less of a  joke when it's a much argued topic within philosophical Ontology.
> 
> Your proposal is somewhat close to Geach's denial of absolute identity, though it is not clear what your precise stance on identity is, or, if you own a donkey, whether you have stopped beating it.
> 
> Can you clarify whether you are dispensing with entities?
> 
> Also, can you write up the other required changes to the OWL specifications required to prevent backdoor assertions that are equivalent to sameAs - Monday morning would be ideal so I'm going to need you work on it on Saturday. Yeah,  that would be great.
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Apr 1, 2016 9:10 AM, "Sarven Capadisli" <info@csarven.ca <mailto:info@csarven.ca>> wrote:
> There is overwhelming research [1, 2, 3] and I think it is evident at this point that owl:sameAs is used inarticulately in the LOD cloud.
> 
> The research that I've done makes me conclude that we need to do a massive sweep of the LOD cloud and adopt owl:sameSameButDifferent.
> 
> I think the terminology is human-friendly enough that there will be minimal confusion down the line, but for the the pedants among us, we can define it along the lines of:
> 
> 
> The built-in OWL property owl:sameSameButDifferent links things to things. Such an owl:sameSameButDifferent statement indicates that two URI references actually refer to the same thing but may be different under some circumstances.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21 <https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21>
> [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/coreconcepts#terms_sameAs <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/coreconcepts#terms_sameAs>
> [3] http://schema.org/sameAs <http://schema.org/sameAs>
> 
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i <http://csarven.ca/#i>
>