Giovanni,
Last week it was proposed that h:correlation is the same as $is, but on further reflection I don't think that's right. I think $is is equivalent in semantics to owl:sameAs. Joseph and I discussed this a bit today on the XDI harmonization portion of the weekly Higgins call. In Higgins h:correlation means: representing the same thing in different contexts. The following para is copied from [1] (BTW, we use the term entity instead of resource):
h:correlation is subtly different from owl:sameAs.
It is statement made by a human observer that the source and target of
this link are believed to be alternative representations of the same
real world person or object. A single, natural person would thus be
represented by different entities in different contexts. This linkage
does not presume that the entire set of attributes across these
entities, if they were brought together and combined, is necessarily
logically consistent. The ontologies in the two contexts may be such
that each of the two representations cannot be merged and remain
logically consistent. For this reason Higgins does not use owl:sameAs
which does imply this ability to directly merge representations. h:correlation
is stronger than rdfs:seeAlso but weaker than owl:sameAs.
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_Data_Model_2.0
On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Giovanni Bartolomeo wrote:
Hello,
having had time this week to look at these Drummond suggested readings:
?When owl:sameAs isn?t the Same: An Analysis of Identity Links on the
Semantic Web?, by Harry Halpin, Ivan Herman, and Patrick J. Hayes
?RDF and XML: Towards a Unified Query Layer?, by Nuno Lopes, Stefan
Bischof, Orri Erling, Axel Polleres, Alexandre Passant, Diego
Berrueta, Antonio Campos, Jé?rôme Euzenat, Kingsley Idehen, Stefan
Decker, Sté?phane Corlosquet, Jacek Kopecky ?, Janne Saarela, Thomas
Krennwallner, Davide Palmisano, and Michal Zaremba
(both will be presented at nextcoming W3C RDF workshop,
http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/) I would like to share with you some
thoughts on how I believe XDI and XRI non-opaque identifiers could
nicely address some issues presented there - especially in the first
article.
Could you insert this topic into today's or next week's phc agenda?
Thank you very much,
Giovanni
