[Warning to readers: Mostly tedious clarifications below. Not much
interesting.]
On 03/29/2013 12:52 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Let's say I have a graph G1 containing two statements s1
and s2.
Both s1 and s2 contain the same uri u1. Do you think the RDF spe
>
> Let's say I have a graph G1 containing two statements s1 and s2.
>>>
>> Both s1 and s2 contain the same uri u1. Do you think the RDF specs
>> allow me to use interpretation I1 for s1 and interpretation I2 for s2?
>>
>
> If you are asking whether the spec tells you how to determine the truth
On 03/28/2013 01:17 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello David,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/27/2013 11:02 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello David,
So if I understand your view correctly, then it could be expressed
in a language close to yours
On 03/27/2013 02:04 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:37 AM, David Booth wrote:
The RDF Semantics spec only tells you how to compute the truth
value of one pair at a time, but you can
certainly apply it to as many pairs as you
want -- in full conformance with the intent of the spec.
Hi Pat,
On 03/26/2013 05:52 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hi David
Sorry if I got a little personal back there, I was getting
frustrated.
Thanks. I can understand the frustration of trying to communicate with
someone who looks at the world differently. :) [Insert joke here
about multiple interpr
Hello David,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/27/2013 11:02 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>>
>> 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
On 03/27/2013 11:02 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
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
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
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
If nothing else, this whole discussion illustrates the difficulties of merging
emails which use different interpretations of "interpretation".
On Mar 26, 2013, at 2:07 PM, "Rich Cooper" wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I agree with you that the interpretations are not
> singular.
snip
ll; Umutcan
ŞİMŞEK; Kingsley Idehen;
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right
way?
Hi Pat,
On 03/25/2013 01:28 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> Given n interpretations and n graphs, it is
perfectly va
Pat,
This is helpful, thanks.
Is there any chance of making it happen? (Then, I think Antione Zimmerman's
semantics proposal for datasets is a small additional step.)
#g
--
On 26/03/2013 09:52, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hi David
Sorry if I got a little personal back there, I was getting frustrated
Hi David
Sorry if I got a little personal back there, I was getting frustrated.
So, thinking over our emails and trying to understand what you were saying, I
think I have it figured out. And your proposal is in fact (still not legal
according to the RDF specs, but) not entirely daft. But you a
On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:18 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> ...
> To claim that the model theoretic style in which the RDF Semantics spec was
> written has any bearing whatsoever on the spec's purpose or its "appropriate
> use" would be a serious misrepresentation of its role as a W3C standa
On 26 March 2013 06:02, 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).
It doesn't
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).
That makes me wonder whether you consider it in conformance with the
s
Hi Pat,
On 03/25/2013 01:28 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> Given n interpretations and n graphs, it is perfectly valid to use
the RDF Semantics to determine the truth-values of each of those n
graphs relative to those n interpretations, witho
OK, we clearly are not getting anywhere with this, but before giving up, I will
cut to the chase.
On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Okay, finally zeroing in on the crux of the matter . . .
>
> On 03/23/2013 12:49 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:30 PM, David
Okay, finally zeroing in on the crux of the matter . . .
On 03/23/2013 12:49 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/21/2013 01:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/20/2013 12:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 18, 20
On 3/22/13 11:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
A simple example is Ian Davis's famous toucan-versus-its-web-page
example,
http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/
in which the same URI "ambiguously" denotes both a toucan and the web
page describing that toucan. One RDF graph, Gt,
On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 01:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>> On 03/20/2013 12:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On
On 03/21/2013 01:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/20/2013 12:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
But presumably
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 12:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> Read the spec: http://www.w3.org/T
On 3/21/13 12:26 PM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
my problem largely lies in the "identifies" relation between a URI and
a document
Yes, but in the context of RDF based Linked Data, a single HTTP URI can
in fact denote one thing in a manner to uses indirection (implicit or
explicit) to identify a
my problem largely lies in the "identifies" relation between a URI and a
document. and generally, that it wouldn't represent as a triad, but a
bilateral relation between an entity (identified by uri) and a document
(which refers or describes it).
m.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Kingsley Ideh
On 3/21/13 10:57 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
Kingsley,
I think you raise good points. I also nominally speak of entities,
their attributes and the relations that hold between them. But I think
your diagram is somewhat misleading. URIs do denote (can stand in the
place of) entities of interest
Kingsley,
I think you raise good points. I also nominally speak of entities, their
attributes and the relations that hold between them. But I think your
diagram is somewhat misleading. URIs do denote (can stand in the place of)
entities of interest in order to refer to and/or describe them. If you
,
Erich
From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:28 AM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right way?
On 3/20/13 10:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
Thus, to be very clear, under the existing RDF Semantics
On 3/20/13 10:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
Thus, to be very clear, under the existing RDF Semantics
specification, a given URI does *not* necessarily map to only one
resource.
True, but I don't think the statement above always provides the clarity
intended.
"Resource" is a synonym of "Entit
On 03/20/2013 12:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
Read the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
Indeed. Section 1.2, first paragraph: "... the semantics
On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> But RDF isnt intended to be used in theology. It is intended for recording
>> data, and most data is pretty mundane stuff about which there is not a lot
>> of factual
I confess to having lost interest in this overly long thread, but then thought
maybe one observation might help clarify the disagreement of sorts between Pat
and David.
The dispute seems to be expressed ontologically: what is the interpretation of
a URI?
But the practical examples seem to be
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> But RDF isnt intended to be used in theology. It is intended for recording
> data, and most data is pretty mundane stuff about which there is not a lot of
> factual disagreement.
I think that's the wrong argument. A logical sys
On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 18/03/2013 04:16, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> I know you can do the graph-as-context trick you describe, and you are not
>> alone. This style of using RDF does however directly violate the RDF
>> specifications, and so is not conformant. So there is
On Mar 18, 2013, at 5:03 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> On 03/18/2013 12:10 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Booth
>>> . . . When you merge
>>> graphs, you force the referents to be the same. Sometimes the
>>> merge works fine, and sometimes the merge
On Mar 18, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>
> It makes little sense to say, I am combining two sets of statements,
> while interpreting the two sets differently. You can only make sense
> with one interpretation at a time.
Exactly. Very nicely put.
Pat
>
> Take care
>
On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
David's assertion that a uri can mean different
On Mar 18, 2013, at 5:21 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/18/2013 01:25 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:40 PM, David Booth wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>>> In the semantic web world, these "contextual scopes" are RDF
>>> graphs.
>>
>> No, they aren't. That interpretation of RDF graphs is i
Hello David,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM, David Booth wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I still do not understand your point. I have been talking
> very narrowly about existing RDF Semantics. It sounds like you are talking
> much more broadly about context, but I don't know what you mean. Clear
On 03/18/2013 06:21 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello David,
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/17/2013 10:55 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
You are in good company in thinking that a URI alw
On 03/18/2013 01:25 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:40 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
In the semantic web world, these "contextual scopes" are RDF
graphs.
No, they aren't. That interpretation of RDF graphs is in direct
violation of the RDF specifications. RDF graphs are simply s
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
> I see no requirement in the RDF Semantics that interpretation "I" be the
> *same* interpretation for every graph "E" to which this procedure is
> applied. Am I right, or have I completely misunderstood something
> fundamental?
Hi Pat,
On 03/18/2013 12:10 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Booth
. . . When you merge
graphs, you force the referents to be the same. Sometimes the
merge works fine, and sometimes the merge becomes inconsistent.
The merge always 'works'. Any set of RDF graphs
Hi Pat,
On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hi David
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
Hi Alan,
On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in
different graphs is an opinion
An opinion? It is direct consequence
On 18/03/2013 04:16, Pat Hayes wrote:
I know you can do the graph-as-context trick you describe, and you are not
alone. This style of using RDF does however directly violate the RDF
specifications, and so is not conformant. So there is a risk of your content
being misused and misunderstood by
Hello David,
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 10:55 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>>
>>> You are in good company in thinking that a URI always denotes the same
>>> resource, bec
On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:40 PM, David Booth wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >
> > My dad's name is Danny. I've known him a Long time, during which
> > he's changed a lot. Am I supposed to stop calling him dad because
> > he's not precisely the same a
Hi Pat,
Most users will interact with what the repository manager knows was
either the most recently updated or the manually set "current"
version. Queries are setup to use the current version by default.
However, part of my projects requirements are to allow the consistent
querying and access to
Peter, greetings.
I know you can do the graph-as-context trick you describe, and you are not
alone. This style of using RDF does however directly violate the RDF
specifications, and so is not conformant. So there is a risk of your content
being misused and misunderstood by RDF users who are una
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple. Either
> a) the apple changed (they do that), or b) someone got it wrong (Is a
> McIntosh a red apple or green apple? It's kind of both).
>
> This of course goes to my gene
On 18 March 2013 12:50, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
>
>> On 18 March 2013 09:14, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> Can someone *please* tell me what a context is??
>>>
>>> My null hypothesis is that when someone says "context" they either don't
>>> know what the
On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 18 March 2013 09:14, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> Can someone *please* tell me what a context is??
>>
>> My null hypothesis is that when someone says "context" they either don't
>> know what they are talking about, or are too lazy to say. Both
On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> ...
> To say that two things are owl:sameAs is a very strong statement.
>
Very true. Speaking strictly, it is incoherent. If A owl:sameAs B then 'A' and
'B' denote the same thing, so there is only one thing there. So *two* things
are neve
Hi David
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different
>> graphs is an opinion
>
> An opinion? It is direct consequence of standard RDF Semantics!
No, it
On 03/17/2013 11:11 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 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
Hi Oliver,
On 03/17/2013 10:55 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
You are in good company in thinking that a URI always denotes the same
resource, because that is a widespread misconception. (I call it Myth #1 in
http://dbooth.org/
Hi Andrea,
On 03/17/2013 10:14 AM, Andrea Splendiani wrote:
P.S.: Maybe there is a natural trade-off between precision and
communication.
I don't know about that, but there *is* a natural trade-off between
precision and reusability: the tighter something is defined, the less
reusable it is.
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
> My dad's name is Danny. I've known him a Long time, during which
> he's changed a lot. Am I supposed to stop calling him dad because
> he's not precisely the same as he was when I was 10?
On 03/17/2013 01:05 AM, Jim McCusk
Hi Tom,
On 03/17/2013 09:16 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
So a URI is basically the same thing as a blank node label in RDF?
No, a blank node has no resource definition. In this sense it is like a
URI with an empty definition.
Why all the whinging about making URIs dereferenceable?
The reason
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> See material (non-role) qua individuals for how contexts work. Roles are a
> kind of context. So are time bounds.
How about telling us in practical ways what these mean, rather than
referring to (a large and not consistent) philosophical li
On 18 March 2013 09:14, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Can someone *please* tell me what a context is??
>
> My null hypothesis is that when someone says "context" they either don't
> know what they are talking about, or are too lazy to say. Both these cases
> are deadly for clear communication on the we
On 18 March 2013 08:54, Jim McCusker wrote:
> If you want to use a common context, use the same URI, but if you don't,
> then don't. I have a paper in submission to ICBO about aggregating facts
> from specializations, I won't go into details but I can send it along if
> anyone's interested.
>
Whe
See material (non-role) qua individuals for how contexts work. Roles are a
kind of context. So are time bounds.
Jim-qua-hcls-member
On Sunday, March 17, 2013, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Can someone *please* tell me what a context is??
>
> My null hypothesis is that when someone says "context" they
Can someone *please* tell me what a context is??
My null hypothesis is that when someone says "context" they either don't
know what they are talking about, or are too lazy to say. Both these cases
are deadly for clear communication on the web.
-Alan
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Jim McCusker
Neither of them are clear enough to be sure what they are referring to.
They both, in their description, refer to molecules in some places, and
packaged therapeutics in others. Their CAS numbers agree (though the
wikipedia mentions that it is of the sodium salt), as do their INCHI,
though the INCHI
If you want to use a common context, use the same URI, but if you don't,
then don't. I have a paper in submission to ICBO about aggregating facts
from specializations, I won't go into details but I can send it along if
anyone's interested.
Jim
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Andrea Splendiani
17.03.2013 17:11 tarihinde, Oliver Ruebenacker yazdı:
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 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? O
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 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 wr
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
> You are in good company in thinking that a URI always denotes the same
> resource, because that is a widespread misconception. (I call it Myth #1 in
> http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html .) But it simply is not true in
>
th
> Cc: Jeremy J Carroll; Umutcan ŞİMŞEK; Kingsley Idehen; w3c semweb HCLS
> Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right way?
>
> Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple. Either
> a) the apple changed (they do that), or b) someone got it wrong (Is a
&
HI,
From what you say, it looks more as if the apple is the same, but perspective
on the apple are different. So same URI and different graphs seem a more clean
approach.
Using different URIs works as well in practice. But I'm a bit confused on how
you make the generalization step. Who is sayin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/16/2013 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
>
>> I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web
>> of data.
>>
>
> Well, you'd better get used to it, because that interpretation is standard
> RDF Semantics. I don't
On 17 March 2013 14:34, Jim McCusker wrote:
> Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple. Either
> a) the apple changed (they do that), or b) someone got it wrong (Is a
> McIntosh a red apple or green apple? It's kind of both).
The devil is always in the detail of course.
have the same
>> URI as it does not *precisely *describe the same thing.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> Erich
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Jim McCusker [mailto:mcc...@rpi.edu]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:35 PM
>>
>
> Erich
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jim McCusker [mailto:mcc...@rpi.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:35 PM
> *To:* David Booth
> *Cc:* Jeremy J Carroll; Umutcan ŞİMŞEK; Kingsley Idehen; w3c semweb HCLS
> *Subject:* Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right w
Hi David,
We've discussed this in the past. You confuse what a uri refers to with the
framework by which a reasoner tries to figure out what entailments can be
made given some set of assertions.
It's as if I say something about my friend Jonathan Rees, and you think you
have sanction to interpret
From: Jim McCusker [mailto:mcc...@rpi.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:35 PM
To: David Booth
Cc: Jeremy J Carroll; Umutcan ŞİMŞEK; Kingsley Idehen; w3c semweb HCLS
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right way?
Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple
Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple. Either
a) the apple changed (they do that), or b) someone got it wrong (Is a
McIntosh a red apple or green apple? It's kind of both).
This of course goes to my general assertion that most of the time,
disjointness assertions are
Hi Alan,
On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different
graphs is an opinion
An opinion? It is direct consequence of standard RDF Semantics! Read
the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
The RDF semantics is only defined for
Hi Jim,
On 03/16/2013 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web
of data.
Well, you'd better get used to it, because that interpretation is
standard RDF Semantics. I don't think it's going away any time soon.
That's part of the m
Interesting discussion,
I would just add a bit (if it was not added in this long email series):
perhaps it is viable to assert owl:sameAs between individuals.
If you identify a person by passport number or tax number, you can collapse all
statements about the two pretty safely (assuming you cons
Very nice!
On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I see Nanopublications as providing a framework for modality. They, of
> course, use named graphs to do this, but they provide a way to express
> attribution and justification in a consistent manner. http://nanopub.org
>
>
> On Sa
(Adding the list back for Alan)
I think he's looking for something like skos:exactMatch/skos:closeMatch but
for things other than concepts, which is (I would argue) prov:alternateOf.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
wrote:
> Below is the documentation for skos:concept
>
> It s
I see Nanopublications as providing a framework for modality. They, of
course, use named graphs to do this, but they provide a way to express
attribution and justification in a consistent manner. http://nanopub.org
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Madden wrote:
> Medical records are fille
David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different graphs
is an opinion that does not concur with either the web specifications nor
the goals they were built to satisfy. Caveat emptor.
-Alan
On Saturday, March 16, 2013, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Umutcan,
>
> You have indeed stumbl
Medical records are filled with modal assertions:
Possibly P(x)
I believe that P(x)
Jim believes P(x) (whereas e..g. perhaps David, Umutcan, Jeremy and I
don't).
At 5:00 pm today P(x)
I disavow P(x)
It is extremely unlikely that P(x)
I know
I see "A URI denotes only one resource" as a rule of the game that makes it
far more interesting than if we don't accept that rule. If I find that
someone is violating that rule, I'll kick them out of my game (exclude
their graph).
Jim
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I'
I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web of
data. That's part of the motivation for having global identifiers like
URIs/URLs. There's no point in merging ANY graphs under this view, since
you have no way of knowing if the referents are the same. I'm not saying
that p
Hi Jim,
You are in good company in thinking that a URI always denotes the same
resource, because that is a widespread misconception. (I call it Myth
#1 in http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html .) But it simply is
not true in the RDF semantics.
The Architecture of the World Wide Web b
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
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
al Message-
From: Jeremy J Carroll [mailto:j...@syapse.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Umutcan ŞİMŞEK
Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right
way?
I did not find this a rookie question at all.
This seems to get to the heart
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
.org
Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Is it used in a right way?
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
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
