----- "Damian Steer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Damian Steer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:25:37 PM GMT +10:00 Brisbane > Subject: Re: Drilling into the LOD Cloud > > [sorry, forgot to reply-all] > > Peter Ansell wrote: > > | That is fine for classes, but how do you map individuals without > metadata side-effects? > > Looking at my previous answer again I think I should take another run > at > this :-) > > One way of thinking about equivalence is in terms of substitution: if > :x > :equiv :y when is it safe to substitute :x with :y? > > The default is: it's not safe (obviously). > > :x equivalentClass :y -> safe when used as a class (e.g. rdf:type :x) > :x sameAs :y -> always safe (watch out!) > :x sameConceptAs :y -> safe in subject positions > :x sameWorkAs :y -> safe for author, creation date > :x sameManifestationAs :y -> safe for the the above, and length (?) Those types of relations would work for me as they are just simple entailment in the non-general case, and for sameAs people know how to interpret that now already. How would I formally represent a specification that sameWorkAs implies you can substitute :x with :y for all ":x dc:creator :z ." statements after defining :x sameWorkAs :y? Is it possible with current grammars? Peter
