On Jul 9, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Peter Ansell wrote: [snip]
For the record, I am not trying to flame anyone, just trying to tease out usable alternatives,
Then I would suggest not claiming that the people you are disputing with are out of touch, unrealistic, fuddy-duddys.
and the cases where we shouldn't use owl:sameAs in order to avoid conflicting with people who want to use OWL reasoners. I, and others, need a predicate, or set of predicates, that can be utilised in queries for accessing and reconciling data across the distributed semantic web database, where no one has compiled a self-contained OWL ontology
I don't see what self-containedness has to do with anything. If you never move beyond rdfs + sameAs, you likely won't have problems (at least in terms of complexity of reasoning; in terms of smushing annotations you will still have problems). But then again, you won't have problems with *any* aribtarily coined predicate with a simple alignment sematnics.
for my particular purpose, or needs to if they are able to accept that non-universal queries are a valid mechanism for new knowledge creation.
I, again, don't know what you mean. AFAICT, I am a person who thinks that non-universal queries are a valid (?) mechanism for "new knowledge creation". So that can't be the heart of our dispute. Thus, it's not a helpful characterization. Perhaps you'd do better focus on arguing your case and be a bit more tentative in your explication of other people's positions and states of mind?
Sorry if it doesn't seem like that is going well so far!
FWIW, it gets under my skin to be attributed positions that I don't hold, even indirectly. Some technical issues with sameAs (annotation mashing) should up at the RDF level, some don't.
Cheers, Bijan.
