On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
[snip]
I don't know how you determine which is the "real" mistake.
By reading the semantics of RDF and OWL:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
I'm not sure why you think there's any dispute about the formal
semantics. The point is that it might do more (or other) than people
might expect, need, or want.
And, well, that was some silly referencing wasn't it? I mean, it's
entirely non specific (no subsection; no quote). And you know I know
about those documents. So I'm not sure your point.
Plus, there are several semantics in there with somewhat different
properties.
Typically, people mean that to be an annotation (e.g., myClass
dc:creator "Bijan"). You can argue that the annotation system is
broken (I've done that), but that really just pushes things around.
Well if we're arguing that the semantics of owl:sameAs should not
be diluted, then I would think we should first take as a given that
the semantics of RDF should not be diluted.
I didn't argue anything about that. I pointed out that sameAs isn't
typically what is *wanted* (because of annotation smushing, but as
easily because of definition smooshing).
If we had annotations that were resilient to sameAs, it would weaken
the argument against using sameAs.
Cheers,
Bijan.
