

Re: What's the difference? rdf:about, owl:sameIndividualAs

From: Steven Gollery <sgollery805@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 12:54:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3ED11F66.9010003@charter.net>


You are correct that it is possible to use rdf:about in place of 
daml:sameIndividualAs in cases when you are defining a new blank node 
and want to state that the resource is in fact the same as a resource 
defined elsewhere.

My point is that the same approach does not work when we try to make the 
same statement about two nodes that are already defined, neither of 
which is blank. As far as I can tell, eliminating sameIndividualAs would 
remove the possibility of making such statements, unless, as you 
mentioned originally, rdf:about becomes a property rather than an 
attribute. Can you show me how, using rdf:about as an attribute, you 
would state that "#van1" refers to the same individual as "#van2", 
without altering their original descriptions?

Your initial question was: what's the difference between rdf:about and 
owl:sameIndividualAs? I'm trying to show a case where they can't be used 
interchangeably, which is one way of answering your question.

Steven Gollery

Jimmy Cerra wrote:

>>The main use that I see for "sameIndividualAs" is in
>>reconciling information that was created by two different
>>sources, where the sameIndividualAs property is added after
>>the "creation" of the individuals.
>That implies that the two different resources being used should not be
>blank.  However, what does it mean if you have a blank node?  What does
>the following mean?
>   <daml:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="#van2"/>
>>The use of "sameIndividualAs" makes sense to me because it has
>>one purpose, whereas "rdf:about" is used in a number of
>>different contexts.
>I don't see how.  "rdf:about" indicates the identity of a resource.
>"daml:sameIndividualAs" indicates the identity of a previously
>identified resource.  Both seem to be used to label a resource with an
>alias.  At least, that's how I see it.
>Jimmy Cerra
>] "I have learned these days, never to limit
>]  anyone else due to my own limited
>]  imagination." - Dr. Mae C. Jemison
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2003 15:54:20 GMT
