Thanks Drummond. Here are a few more thoughts:
1) I think that h:correlation (c. 2005) is the same as oguid:identical [1] (c. 2008) although I've not studied that too carefully. A quote from [1]: The property oguid:identical indicates two resources are co-referent. In other words, they refer to the same real world thing. Open GUID identity is defined pragmatically as referring to the same concept beyond a reasonable doubt. The major determinant is if the average human perceives the resources as referring to the same thing. The linking implication can be described as being between OWL sameAs and RDFS seeAlso. The sameAs property declares equivalence of semantic representations; thus it should be used carefully to avoid confusing logical reasoners. The seeAlso property provides additional information; nothing useful can be inferred from the link. The identical property declares equivalence of referents; thus it allows reasoners to use local representations while still maintaining global context. 2) The concept of coreference [2] may also be helpful. 3) In Higgins the to co-referents must exist in different contexts. With that as background, I'd like to say that it would be great if we could arrive at a precise semantic (irrespective of predicate name, $ word, etc.) that we could all use. If this TC comes up with a compatible but more precisely worded definition, I'd like nothing more than to copy/paste that definition into [3]. [1] http://openguid.net/specification#identical [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreference [3] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_Data_Model_2.0#Attributes On Jun 25, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Drummond Reed wrote: > > Paul wrote: > > Agreed (although I think you meant "symmetric" vs. transitive) > > Paul, you're right, we did mean symmetric. > > BTW, though we spent the last half of today's telecon discussing this issue, > and agreed that the full $is semantics --- i.e. the semantics of a full > identity relation -- is too strong for just "observed correlation", we didn't > yet get into either: > > 1) What the precise definition would be for this weaker form of identity > relation. > > 2) What the XDI $word for it would be. > > I think the TC is open to suggestions for both. My suspicion is that the > definition is probably along the lines of one of the four options discussed > in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21 (probably "4.1 Same Thing As > But Referentially Opaque" or "4.2 Same Thing As But Different Context" or > some combination of these two). > > My only suggestion to a $word for this weaker form is $as. Example: > > =drummond/$as/@golfclub+member!43 > > The semantics of $as would be "an identity relation between two XDI subjects > in which there is not a requirement that all properties of one subject apply > to the other and vice versa, nor a requirement that for XDI statement > consistency across their respective XDI graphs." > > That's just a strawman - hack away. > > =Drummond > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Paul Trevithick <[email protected]> > wrote: > Agreed (although I think you meant "symmetric" vs. transitive) > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:22 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:[email protected]] >> 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
