Glenn,
On 10/12/2011 09:24 AM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
Who else would be able to make assertions about "your" notion of
Brussels vis-a-vis "some other notion of Brussels" with any more
authority than your own?
The person doing the integration of your dataset with some other
dataset for some purpose of /theirs/. The kind of correspondence
needed is a function of the purpose of combining the data.
And what of a purpose of yours? That is when you are combining datasets
for purposes of your own?
Ignoring owl:sameAs statements isn't an option?
Not if you have a mixture of owl:sameAs statements you /have/ to use
and ones you /can't/. Whereas if you have x:correspondsTo,
y:correspondsTo and z:correspondsTo, it /is/ easy to say that
y:correspondsTo (but not the other two) is the same as owl:sameAs.
Sorry, who is using the x:correspondsTo? You make it sound like
correspondsTo will be used so as to allow/enable the choice you want to
make with regard to owl:sameAs.
Note I am not disagreeing that you will need to make the distinction,
what I am missing is how correspondsTo (if not used with sufficient
granularity) will help you get there? You can't choose to ignore
owl:sameAs on the basis of the components that make up the relationship?
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
