Hi Leigh, Bradley, Rufus,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Bradley Allen<[email protected]> wrote:
Leigh- This is great. The question that comes up for me out of what you've
written for unpublishing brings me back to Antoine's question: is it
appropriate to use a relation other than owl:sameAs that more specific to
the domain of the affected datasets being mapped, or is the nature of
unpublishing such that one would, as opposed to my reasoning earlier, be as
broad as possible in asserting equivalence, and use owlsameAs in every such
case?
Really interesting question, and this might prompt me to revise the pattern :)
So, generally, I advocate using the appropriate equivalence relation
that relates to a specific domain. As I wrote in [1] its best to use
the most appropriate equivalence link, as they have varying semantics.
But for the unpublishing use case I think I'd personally lean towards
*always* using owl:sameAs at least in the case where we are returning
a 301 status code. I've previously come to the conclusion [2] that a
301 implies a sameAs statement. The intent seems very similar to a
sameAs. Rewriting local links to use a new location is very similar to
smushing descriptions in an RDF dataset such that statements only
relate to the new URI.
However I can see arguments to the effect that the new authority might
have a slightly different definition of a resource than the original
publisher, such that an owl:sameAs might be inappropriate. That's why
I left the advice in the pattern slightly open ended: I think it may
need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but owl:sameAs seems
like a good workable default to me.
Cheers,
L.
[1]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/equivalence-links.html
[2]. http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2007/03/the-semantics-of-301-moved-permanently/
Thanks for the links--the pattern is well written!
So for now I'm still standing behind our choice for owl:sameAs. But I'll be
following the list, in case new arguments arise. If ever anyone shows interest
for such explicit RDF linking, in the first place!
By the way, I've tried to update our DataHub entry at
http://thedatahub.org/dataset/stitch-rameau, fitting "decommissioned"
somewhere. I've just added it as a tag for now, I did not know which other fields I could
use.
Cheers,
Antoine
