Other identifiers [was: SNAP ontology and cookbook: issues]

[Gabriel Bodard]

>> > 5. The use of dc:identifier to link to other URLs for the same person
>> > (VIAF, DBpedia) is unusual. Both dc:identifier and dct:identifier allow
>> > literals. Better use rdfs:isDefinedBy or rdfs:seeAlso (but perhaps not
>> > owl:sameAs, which implies "smushing" semantics)
>> This is a good point, but we don't think isDefinedBy or seeAlso are a
>> very good fit either. Happy for other suggestions from the list?
>
> Ok then, use lvont:strictlySameAs.

From the definition, it looks as if strictlySameAs is *even more*
strong that owl:sameAs in asserting perfect identity. (I see how it
solves some of the problems of the latter, but not our problem, which
is that we want to say that this URI refers to the same person, not
that the two records should be considered identical.)

Others have also suggested skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch as
candidates for this property (although I believe there's an issue with
using SKOS terms out of the context of a full SKOS implementation).

Any other suggestions from the list?

Cheers,

Gabby

--
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
Boris Karloff Building
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel...@kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/

[Ethan Gruber]

I don't think it's that big of a deal to use SKOS properties in this case, but I myself might posit that every entity in SNAP is a skos:Concept anyway.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ancient People" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ancient-peopl...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ancient...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ancient-people.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CAN%3DsxYBz3zFY72BaL-2dCbhNgZGbKd4idfD0dNhKVDHTRAmjpw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Leif Isaksen]

AFAICT strictlySameAs isn't stronger than sameAs, it's just
'stricter'. i.e. it's an attempt to reclaim what sameAs was always
intended to be, to wit, identical in all situations. It's a response
to the problem of 'semantic creep' in which pesky humans start
layering well-scoped URIs with their own loosely interpreted variants.
Whether or not we will need a strictlyStrictlySameAs remains a moot
point but for now it's probably OK. For our alignment purposes it
might be OK but I'm not sure what advantages being so strict would
necessarily afford us:

sameAs = person x (defined here) is person y (defined there).
strictlySameAs = person x (defined here) _really is_ person y (defined there).

cheers

Leif strictlySameAs Leifuss

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CAGm-SsXozVZOUcEm_DBoYALzAgEjSjnQXiasEW%2B42Nm8sjxOOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hugh Cayless]

After some deliberation, we're inclined to use skos:exactMatch, on the basis that it doesn't hurt anything to assert that URIs identifying people are SKOS Concepts.

Hugh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CABz56v-R3%2Bp--De0Fv%3DMCDzeH6ndqZeZCQPyorFDZg4WHtSrpA%40mail.gmail.com.