David,
The problem with this is that by definition, URIs ALWAYS denote the same
resource. If there is doubt that you might be denoting something other than
what a resource is, you should be defining your own resource.
Jim
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Umutcan,
>
>
Hi Umutcan,
You have indeed stumbled on a deep question, and I think Jeremy's
suggestion is exactly right. This paper on "Resource Identity and
Semantic Extensions:
Making Sense of Ambiguity" illustrates how owl:sameAs works in RDF
semantics:
http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#sameA
Hello Jeremy,
Thank you for introducing yourself. It would be an honor to have you
join any of the activities at HCLS. Your expertise will surely
strengthen our activities in HCLS.
On Monday, we will have a teleconference about common metadata (about
an RDF dataset in a named graph) at 3PM CET (1
Welcome Jeremy!
Sounds interesting! Many of us are having this very conversation about naming
and scaling offlist, and we'll bring you into it.
The time slot for the clinical pgx was changed from 11am to 1015am EDT to
accomodate my teaching requirements for this term and european participants
On 3/15/13 6:10 PM, Joanne Luciano wrote:
Funny,
I follow the tech details- nice practical question and discussion, but
i am clueless as to what "horses for courses" compliant means.
It's an old English saying [1] :-)
Link:
1. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horses_for_courses .
Kingsley
J
That practical considerations trump theoretical purity ….
it depends what you are doing
Hmmm
http://www.italki.com/question/107417
suggests it is not US English, and so should have been avoided on this list,
which IIRC, is meant to be en-US ….
"A mostly British expression urging someone to
Funny,
I follow the tech details- nice practical question and discussion, but i am
clueless as to what "horses for courses" compliant means.
Joanne
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 15, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> "horse
On 3/15/13 4:40 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
I think Jim's solution looks to me like the best realistic one going
forward … having somewhat looser variants of owl:sameAs and ask people
to be a bit honest with their use of sameAs …
For Alan's approach, I feel a problem is that what we are doing
While it doesn't seem to be the convention in this group, now that I have
graduated from lurking to participating, I thought I should say why I am here.
I have a new job with a genomics company in Silicon Valley, and my remit is to
work out how best to represent both scientific knowledge about
While this discussion is on the subjective
evaluation of two individuals, there is another
situation which should be considered. That is
when individual A makes a graph of her
observations, and individual B reviews A's graph,
critiques, evaluates, modifies or interprets A's
graph.
For example,
Indeed, it even frees you up to determine what semantics you need in that
context. A property chain is pretty simple to write...
Jim
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 3/15/13 3:18 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
>
> This is a useful solution, but doesn't address issues that
On 3/15/13 3:18 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
This is a useful solution, but doesn't address issues that arise when
Gu or Gj contain owl:sameAs triples, but the authors of those graphs
didn't actually mean the full OWL semantics by it. In the provenance
WG, we have come up with two relations that are
SKOS addresses terms, i.e., lexical resources, vocabularies, rather than
concepts (ontologies), so could be used if you have perhaps distinct
terminology that maps to OWL/RDF ontologies. SKOS provides term resources that
help you map your vocabulary to OWL ontologies. That’s its purpose. So if y
On Mar 15, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> "horses for courses" compliant
wonderful!
On 3/15/13 2:29 PM, 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
SKOS properties only apply to concepts. So if you're describing concepts,
go wild. But they don't cover the world.
Jim
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK wrote:
> And I forgot to ask, can there be a solution based on SKOS vocabulary?
> AFAIK, SKOS properties are more flexible and
On 3/15/13 2:02 PM, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK 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?
Of course not. The problem is that you come to a poi
And I forgot to ask, can there be a solution based on SKOS vocabulary?
AFAIK, SKOS properties are more flexible and semantically looser than
owl:sameAs.
On 15-03-2013 22:40, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
I think Jim's solution looks to me like the best realistic one going
forward … having somewhat l
I think Jim's solution looks to me like the best realistic one going forward …
having somewhat looser variants of owl:sameAs and ask people to be a bit honest
with their use of sameAs …
For Alan's approach, I feel a problem is that what we are doing is making an
approximate model of the world,
As I read your detailed answers and dug into web about the issue, I
started to get how big deal is this. Seperation of description of a
thing and thing's itself seems a better and easier to get solution. I
don't think I will have a big problem for lodd but for further works I
may have.
Here t
There's another perspective, which is to to distinguish descriptions of
things from the things themselves. This works if you can agree on identity
of the thing but not necessarily on the way to describe it. As an example,
consider the class of cars manufactured by Nissan (call it Cn). If you can
ag
This is a useful solution, but doesn't address issues that arise when Gu or
Gj contain owl:sameAs triples, but the authors of those graphs didn't
actually mean the full OWL semantics by it. In the provenance WG, we have
come up with two relations that are sameAs-like, but no not have the full
owl:s
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.
M
Hi,
I have been struggling with exactly the same questions in some work I am doing,
and seem to have hit on this same three graph solution. I am glad to see
someone else is thinking this way, because rookie that I am, I wasn't sure if I
was going down a bad path or not.
Bonnie MacKellar
macke.
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 abo
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
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
Hi folks,
I am started to being bugged after reading the paper called "When
owl:sameAs isn’t the Same: An Analysis of Identity
Links on the Semantic Web"[1]
According to W3, definition of owl:sameAs is this: 'Such
an|owl:sameAs|statement indicates that two URI references actually refer
to th
28 matches
Mail list logo
