On 26 Mar 2009, at 11:01, David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 21:34 -0400, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ] the important criterion for using owl:sameAs are: (a)
in *your* RDF graph the two terms are intended to denote the *same*
individual; and (b) your RDF graph is consisistent with their
definitions. [ . . . . ]
After writing the above I realized that it may sound like I am saying
that it is okay to use owl:sameAs indiscriminately in cases where a
weaker assertion would do. As many have pointed out owl:sameAs is
likely to cause problems when graphs are merged, which I illustrated:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2009Mar/0169.html
For example, graphs G1 and G2 individually use owl:sameAs without
problem, but they are inconsistent when merged.
[snip]
Credit when credit is due...this all sounds much less naive than the
earlier stuff.
Cheers,
Bijan.
