Hi James, Christoph and other readers on the mailinglist Christoph LANGE wrote: > No, it's a very good objection. I cannot tell you what implications > it has to link two URIs with relation1#eq, but I can tell you what > it means to an OWL reasoner when you use owl#sameAs (see > http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2010/papers/ldow2010_paper09.pdf for > further background). Please allow me a short excursion into OWL and > OWL/RDF-based linked data here: > > [...] > > That means, <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1> _is_ transc1#sin, with all > of its properties. [...] > > So much for the strict semantics of that. You may now think that > owl:sameAs is a bit too strong for us, but linked data practice > (e.g. the application that I showed at the workshop) is more relaxed > than OWL theory. And there is not a big choice of link types that > are universally understood by linked data clients. The only > alternative would be rdfs:seeAlso, which is IMHO too weak for what > we want to say here, or an OpenMath-specific subrelation of > rdfs:seeAlso (e.g. om:equivalentDefinition), but the average client > will either ignore such links (i.e. not follow them), or treat them > in the same way as rdfs:seeAlso. > > So I'd still opt for owl:sameAs (unless we want relation1#eq).
One other thing that strikes me here: in linked data practice one often makes a distinction between a resuource and its description. (Is this correct, Christoph?) So, It hink that <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1> is a description of a resource 'sin', not the 'sin' itself. (Or does DLMF say that <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1> is the resource and <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14#E1> is the description?) If I am right, using owl:sameAs might cause trouble. For example, <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1> might have an author: <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1> dc:author "Levinson" . This would then cause the 'sin' itself to have Levinson as author which is kind of weird. In general, I think one has to be extremely careful when using owl:sameAs. I opt for not using owl:sameAs and not using relation1#eq either. Is there another option which would be reasonable in practice? Maybe it would be correct to state that <http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1> _defines_ 'sin' instead of saying that they are the same. Greetings Urs _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
