The thing is, using semantics of predicates is kinda hard. Joining on
URIs is dead easy.
Where possible make it easy.
On 23/05/11 18:17, glenn mcdonald wrote:
That may be so but it misses the point. The point is there is a field,
be it a URI or a literal however modelled, that can be used to join
between two datasets. This join field is "hidden" in that there exists
no (known) dataset that contains all possible values it can take on.
Hmm. I'm still not getting why this is a problem. It seems like as
long as the ISSNs in both datasets are represented by nodes with
type-assignments, all you have to assert is that the two types are
equivalent (e.g. same URIs, or owl:equivalentClass...), and that their
rdfs:labels uniquely define them (e.g.
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty...). I don't (yet) see why you need an
imaginary extra dataset in between.
--
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248
/ Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
/ Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton,
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
/ Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/
