That made it clear, thanks again. I'm sure it will be helpful for other
developers either in the future.
Umutcan
On 15-03-2013 20:29, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
I did not find this a rookie question at all.
This seems to get to the heart of some of the real difficult issues in Semantic
Web.
My perspective is different from yours, and a resource description that I
author is a description of the resource from my perspective; a resource
description that you author is a description from your perspective.
If I have some detailed application that depends in some subtle way on my
description, I may want to ignore your version; on the other hand, a third
party might want to use both of our points of view.
One way of tacking this problem is to have three graphs for this case:
Gj, Gu, G=
Gj contains triples describing my point of view
Gu contains triples describing your point of view
G= contains the owl:sameAs triples
Then, in some application contexts, we use Gj, sometimes Gu, and sometimes all
three.
Jeremy
On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umut...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the quick answer : )
So this issue is that subjective for contexts which allows to use owl:sameAs to
link resources if they are not semantically even a little bit related in real
world?
Sorry if I'm asking too basic questions. I'm still a rookie at this :D
Umutcan
On 15-03-2013 19:38, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 3/15/13 1:05 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK wrote:
My question is, does LODD use owl:sameAs properly? For instance, are those two resources,
dbpedia:Metamizole and drugbank:DB04817 (code for Metamizole), really identical? Or am I
getting the word "property" in the paper wrong?
The question is always about: do those URIs denote the same thing? Put
differently, do the two URIs have a common referent?
## Turtle ##
<#i> owl:sameAs <#you>.
## End ##
That's a relation in the form of a 3-tuple based statement that carries entailment
consequences for a reasoner that understand the relation semantics. Through some
"context lenses" the statement above could be accurate, in others totally
inaccurate.
Conclusion, beauty lies eternally in the eyes of the beholder :-)
