I agree it is a very subtle point - the paper Giovanni references in his email describes this very well. So if we need another XDI verb for non-transitive, not-logically identical identity assertions, let's decide what it is.
I put this on the agenda for today's call.
=Drummond
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Barnhill, William [USA] <> wrote:
From my standpoint I've always thought of the XDI synonym
dollar word, which is now $is, as mapping to owl:sameAs. I briefly thought it
might be better to map to something a little weaker, skos:closeMatch, but came
back around to believing it should map to owl:sameAs. Another reason I think
h:correlation couldn't map to $is is that h:correlation is specifically not
a transitive property according to the Higgins XDI Harmonization wiki,
whereas $is must be.
Bill
From: Paul Trevithick
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:15
PM
To: Giovanni Bartolomeo
Cc: OASIS - XDI
TC
Subject: Re: [xdi] reactions on paper "When owl:sameAs isn?t the
Same..."
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
