Advertisement

A Contextualised Semantics for owl:sameAs

  • Wouter BeekEmail author
  • Stefan Schlobach
  • Frank van Harmelen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9678)

Abstract

Identity relations are at the foundation of the Semantic Web and the Linked Data Cloud. In many instances the classical interpretation of identity is too strong for practical purposes. This is particularly the case when two entities are considered the same in some but not all contexts. Unfortunately, modeling the specific contexts in which an identity relation holds is cumbersome and, due to arbitrary reuse and the Open World Assumption, it is impossible to anticipate all contexts in which an entity will be used. We propose an alternative semantics for owl:sameAs that partitions the original relation into a hierarchy of subrelations. The subrelation to which an identity statement belongs depends on the dataset in which the statement occurs. Adding future assertions may change the subrelation to which an identity statement belongs, resulting in a context-dependent and non-monotonic semantics. We show that this more fine-grained semantics is better able to characterize the actual use of owl:sameAs as observed in Linked Open Datasets.

Keywords

Identity Relation Identity Lattice Formal Concept Analysis Identity Pair Identity Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Alexander, K., Cyganiak, R., Hausenbals, M., Zhao, J.: Describing linked datasets with the VoID vocabulary, March 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Groth, P., van Harmelen, F., Hoekstra, R.: A Semantic Web Primer, 3rd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Linked Data (2010). http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
  4. 4.
    de Melo, G.: Not quite the same: identity constraints for the web of linked data. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, L., Shinavier, J., Finin, T., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL: sameAs and linked data: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the Web Science (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding, L., Shinavier, J., Shangguan, Z., McGuinness, D.L.: SameAs networks and beyond: analyzing deployment status and implications of owl:sameAs in linked data. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forrest, P.: The identity of indiscernibles. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganter, B.: Non-symmetric indiscernibility. In: Wolff, K.E., Palchunov, D.E., Zagoruiko, N.G., Andelfinger, U. (eds.) KONT 2007 and KPP 2007. LNCS, vol. 6581, pp. 26–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geach, P.T.: Identity. Rev. Metaphysics 21, 3–12 (1967). Reprinted in Geach, pp. 238–247 (1972)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpin, H., Hayes, P.J., McCusker, J.P., McGuinness, D.L., Thompson, H.S.: When owl: sameAs isn’t the same: an analysis of identity in linked data. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 305–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, H., Hayes, P.J., Thompson, H.S.: When owl: sameAs isn’t the same redux: towards a theory of identity, context, and inference on the semantic web. In: Christiansen, H., Stojanovic, I., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) CONTEXT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9045, pp. 47–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kripke, S.: Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewis, D.: On the plurality of worlds. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, C., Qi, G., Wang, H., Yong, Y.: Fuzzy reasoning over RDF data using OWL vocabulary. In: Proceedings of the International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 162–169 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCusker, J., McGuinness, D.: Towards identity in linked data. In: Proceedings of OWL Experiences and Directions Seventh Annual Workshop (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miles, A., Bechhofer, S.: SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference, August 2009Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Patel-Schneider, P.: OWL 2 web ontology language direct semantics, 2nd edn., December 2012Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Orman Quine, W.: Identity, ostension, and hypostasis. J. Philos. 47(22), 621–633 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soru, T., Marx, E., Ngomo Ngonga, A.-C.: Rocker: a refinement operator for key discovery. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, pp. 1025–1033 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vilem, V.: A new algorithm for computing formal concepts. In: Cybernetics and Systems, pp. 15–21 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wielemaker, J., Beek, W., Hildebrand, M., van Ossenbruggen, J.: Cliopatria: A logical programming infrastructure for the semantic web. Semant. Web J. (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wouter Beek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan Schlobach
    • 1
  • Frank van Harmelen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations