On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> I guess your analogy to GOTO put my back up a little.
I rather liked the GOTO/owl:sameAs presentation …
and I am not sure that the problem can be explained away as modeling errors.
To me it does seem that there is a case to answer … modeling is
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Well, I agree that is a problem, but don't draw the conclusion that there
> is something wrong with sameAs, just because people keep using it wrong. I
> guess your analogy to GOTO put my back up a little.
>
The analogy to GOTO was pretty apt,
On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> (Sorry about the empty reply to myself)
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and do
> not confuse i
(Sorry about the empty reply to myself)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and
>> do not confuse information about some thing with meta-information abo
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and
>> do not confuse information about some thing with meta-information about
>> that information. The meta-informat
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and
> do not confuse information about some thing with meta-information about
> that information. The meta-information is not about the thing.
>
If only owl:sameAs were used c
On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Rafael Richards wrote:
> This has been a very prolific thread, but did we discuss provenance?
>
> A slideshare on owl:sameAs - Harmful to Provenance is here:
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/jpmccusker/owlsameas-considered-harmful-to-provenance
>
> Presentation Abst
PROV is now a Proposed Recommendation, which means the model has been
frozen for quite some time. It is also potentially very lightweight, you
don't have to use all of it to gain benefits from it. Simple derivation
graphs can be composed using prov:wasDerivedFrom, and there are many
properties, suc
So I assume that you feel that PROV is in a state that you can start
building conforming tools.
SInce I'm the sole developer of my NLP system, I just don't have the time
to devote to something as big and "heavy" as PROV. But I'm happy to see the
work going on. Somewhere down the road I will have
It's also encouraging that w3c HCLS is focusing actively on the
provenance discussion. We've found (and presented on) practical benefits
from use of PROV-O and VoID.
All the best,
Bob
From: Jim McCusker [mailto:james.mccus...@yale.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:43 PM
To:
Hi Bob
I am a message behind in my thinking, thanks for all your input.
My use case is a lot less clear than it could be … in that the contribution I
am seeking to make lies somewhere in the tool-chain, not at the very bottom,
but also not right next to the scientists or clinicians working wit
Which is why PROV exists. Now we have a floor to work from. I've already
integrated it into a number of projects.
Jim
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bob Futrelle wrote:
> Provenance techniques/tools/systems are nowhere near what they could to be.
> Each provenance system or "standard" ends up
Provenance techniques/tools/systems are nowhere near what they could to be.
Each provenance system or "standard" ends up being unique so the
information is not inter-operative.
One example among the many: http://openprovenance.org/
These days, I'm more focused on NLP than serious knowledge system
On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:37 AM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> On 03/25/2013 04:02 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>> Hello David,
>>
>> We agree that there are different interpretations. But you haven't
>> shown that the boundaries between interpretations are graphs
>> boundaries (other
The short answer: not anymore, if you use prov:alternateOf and
prov:specializationOf instead.
Jim
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Rafael Richards wrote:
> This has been a very prolific thread, but did we discuss provenance?
>
> A slideshare on owl:sameAs - Harmful to Provenance is here:
>
>
This has been a very prolific thread, but did we discuss provenance?
A slideshare on owl:sameAs - Harmful to Provenance is here:
http://www.slideshare.net/jpmccusker/owlsameas-considered-harmful-to-provenance
Presentation Abstract:
GOTO was once a standard operation in most computer programming
Hello David,
So if I understand your view correctly, then it could be expressed
in a language close to yours as:
"Some people believe that if a URI occurs twice within a graph or
statement, it refers to the same thing. But this is a myth! RDF never
guarantees that two occurrences of the
Hi Oliver,
On 03/25/2013 04:02 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello David,
We agree that there are different interpretations. But you haven't
shown that the boundaries between interpretations are graphs
boundaries (others, including me, think that each interpretation is
global).
I don
18 matches
Mail list logo
