Re: New version of URI Declarations [Usage scenarios]

But only iff they are essential, identifying claims.
In the general case we shd all use Alices's URI but qualify the claim 
with the claimant.
This is closer to real life.  I claim Hilary Clinton will win the 
My wife claims she will not.

John Cowan wrote:

>Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) scripsit:
>>SCENARIO 1: Fred wishes to publish some RDF assertions about a
>>particular protein.  He notices that Alice, Beatrice and Carl have
>>already published assertions about the protein, and they all use the
>>same URI to denote that protein: the URI minted by Alice.  Fred notices
>>that if he uses Alice's URI to denote the protein, his assertions will
>>be logically inconsistent with some of Alice's assertions, although
>>they are logically consistent with Beatrice and Carl's assertions.
>>He wonders whether he should publish his assertions using Alice's URI
>>-- and post a blog entry noting that his assertions should not be used
>>in conjunction with Alice's assertions -- or mint a new URI.
>>Question: Should Fred use Alice's URI?
>>Answer: No.  He should mint a new URI and indicate the relationship
>>(not owl:sameAs) to Alice's URI -- at least rdfs:seeAlso.
>That sounds right iff Fred's assertions are essential (identifying) claims,
>but not otherwise.  If I assert that aneurine HCl is soluble in water, and you
>assert that it is insoluble, it is more likely that one of us is wrong
>than that we mean two different things by the term "aneurine HCl".

All the best, Ashok

Received on Sunday, 2 March 2008 00:04:59 UTC