> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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.
Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said: 'I don't know how you determine which is the "real" mistake'. I thought you were implying that one could just as well interpret your example: >> E.g., If I say someTerm dc:creator "Bijan" and someone else >> someOtherTerm dc:creator "BoogerHead Jones", and then we say that >> someTerm sameAs someOtherTerm, we've (semantically) lost the >> distinguish between who created what. as a misuse of owl:sameAs or a misuse of dc:creator, and I was pointing out that, no, according to my understanding of the RDF and OWL semantics documents, one could *not* just as well view this as a misuse of owl:sameAs: the misuse (if there is one) is clearly of dc:creator. > > 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. No, it was not silly. The point was to be clear about what documents I meant. I was not intending to refer to any particular section or quote. I am well aware that *you* know about those documents, but I consider it a matter of good list etiquette to at least make an attempt to be clear to other readers also. > > 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). Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "annotation smushing" or "definition smooshing" -- examples would be very helpful. Can you show some others? But the argument that "Typically, people mean that to be an annotation" (in reference to the above example), sounds a lot like it is trying to justify a dilution of the RDF semantics in the case of this kind of "annotation" example merely because people misuse it that way. And I don't think it would make sense to do that, just as I don't think we should dilute the semantics of owl:sameAs. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hp.com/go/software Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
