[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] reactions on paper "When owl:sameAs isn?t the Same..."
I was thinking more about this and think we may need a new
$ word.
The use case is this:
Say we have =Alice whose doctor is @bobmed+doctor=Bob.
Let's also say there is a global community of patients at @patient and Alice's
identity as a patient is @patient!45. Alice as a patient {@patient!45} and Alice as an individual {=Alice}
map to the same entity {her i-number} but they aren't synonyms because
there are clear contexts where Alice's patient identity is not interchangeable
with Alice's identity as an individual or as an entity, and vice versa, due to
privacy, compliance, or other reasons. That means we cannot use $is. Given the
semantics of $has and is I don't believe this maps to $is$has as that means
=Alice has a member of her set that is @patient!45, whereas $partOf would mean
that the set of members of @patient!45 are a subset of the members of =Alice, in
the same way that the one identity is a subset of the other, but I'm interested
in what others on the TC think on that.
What do people think of adopting $partOf for situations
like this, i.e. @patient!45/$partOf/=Alice ? This would map to/from
h:partOf and skos:partOf.
Bill From: Barnhill, William [USA] [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:22 PM To: Paul Trevithick; Giovanni Bartolomeo Cc: OASIS - XDI TC Subject: RE: [xdi] reactions on paper "When owl:sameAs isn?t the Same..." From my standpoint I've always thought of the XDI synonym
dollar word, which is now $is, as mapping to owl:sameAs. I briefly thought it
might be better to map to something a little weaker, skos:closeMatch, but came
back around to believing it should map to owl:sameAs. Another reason I think
h:correlation couldn't map to $is is that h:correlation is specifically not
a transitive property according to the Higgins XDI Harmonization wiki,
whereas $is must be.
Bill
From: Paul Trevithick [mailto:ptrevithick@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:15 PM To: Giovanni Bartolomeo Cc: OASIS - XDI TC Subject: Re: [xdi] reactions on paper "When owl:sameAs isn?t the Same..." Giovanni,
Last week it was proposed that h:correlation is the same as $is, but on
further reflection I don't think that's right. I think $is is
equivalent in semantics to owl:sameAs. Joseph and I discussed this a bit today
on the XDI harmonization portion of the weekly Higgins call. In Higgins
h:correlation means: representing the same thing in different contexts. The
following para is copied from [1] (BTW, we use the term entity instead of
resource):
On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Giovanni Bartolomeo wrote: Hello, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]