Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 20 Oct 2011, at 00:23, Nathan wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
Hi.
I have argued for a long time that the linkage data (in particular owl:sameAs
and similar links) should not usually be mixed with the knowledge being
published.
Thus, for example as I discussed with Evan for the NYTimes site a while ago, it
is not a good thing to put the owl:sameAs links (which were produced by a
relatively unskilled individual over a short period of time) at the same status
as the other data, which has been curated over decades by expert reporters.
These sameAs links have potentially very different trust, provenance, licence,
and possibly other non-functional attributes from the substantive data.
Clearly they have different trust and provenance, but licence may well be
different, as the NYT may want people to take the triples away to bring traffic
to their site, while keeping the other triples under more restricted licence.
seeAlso and put that information in to a different document, available upon
request.
Sounds good.
But does not really address the problem.
Where do you put the seeAlso?
In the same Graph/store, with the same provenance/licence?
The particular predicate is not the issue - it is how you communicate the
provenance/licence etc. of the knowledge, and if it gets the same
provenance/licence as the data it is about through being put in the same place.
Whatever happens behind the interface is perhaps of no concern, do that
however it can be done, on the public side of things simply split the
data in to different documents, and apply provenance/license data on a
per document basis. Thus allowing you to stick the perhaps untrustworthy
sameAs assertions in one document, and the more trustworthy assertions
in another, primary, document.
As for how exactly you communicate each documents provenance / license,
well that's perhaps another topic, one not for me!
Best,
Nathan
