- From: Butler, Mark <mark-h.butler@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:41:18 +0100
- To: "'David R. Karger'" <karger@mit.edu>
- Cc: SIMILE public list <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
Hi Dave These emails are quite old so things have moved on a little but ... > I agree that the two cases that you show are of equivalently expressive, > but I wasn't talking about multiple classification. In cases where > objectA and objectB are independently developed, the semantic value of > some propertyB is likely to vary even when referring to the same > property. Andy proposes moving the discordant element into an new > property that is a schema-specific identifier, but the way I would model > it is that the instances remain seperate, in other words: > objectA > [ > rdf:type typeA > b:propertyB "Yin" > c:propertyC "valuec" > ] > objectB > [ > rdf:type typeB > b:propertyB "Yang" > d:propertyD "valued" > ] > objectC > [ > rdf:type someEquivalenceType > :equivalent <objectA> > :equivalent <objectB> > ] This is the approach we have used, but the equivalence is slightly different as we use owl:sameAs e.g. objectA [ owl:sameAs objectB ] > As usual I am much behind, but I wanted to remark on > another problem with defining a "creator" class the way > you described it. Since creator.role presumably may be > different for each work, we can't represent someone who > created multiple resources as a unique resource. This > would appear to complicate our goal of linking? Creators are first class objects, with URIs, so it is possible to link them. Basically now we using URIs where we may have links, this is why the decision in SKOS not to give URIs to alternative terms caused us problems. Dr Mark H. Butler Research Scientist, HP Labs Bristol http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 09:41:53 UTC