[open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

Young,Jeff (OR) jyoung at oclc.org
Tue Jul 6 16:27:17 UTC 2010

Let me address Ross' question before attempting to argue that restraint
to a single rdf:type is good practice.


Here is the example in question:




The owl:sameAs property asserts that these two URIs identify "the same
thing" (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def):





The 1st URI responds with this statement:


<http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/muscomp/sy#genre> rdf:type


The 2nd URI responds with this:


<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Symphony> rdf:type

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Symphony> rdf:type


Other rdf:type and owl:sameAs assertions cascade from there in dbpedia.


The following document isn't authoritative, but it discusses some of the
confusion surrounding owl:sameAs and may also help us sort out the




Here is a quote:


"However, owl:sameAs does have a particular semantics of individual
identity, namely that the two individuals are exactly the same and so
share all the same properties." (original emphasis).


Since rdf:type is a property, I assume that an OWL reasoner should back
me up in my claim that Ross' example has multiple rdf:types. I just
downloaded Pellet and will report on the results once I figure out how
to run it. Hopefully, it will demonstrate how "share" involving
owl:sameAs plays out in practice.





From: rxs at talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs at talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
To: William Waites
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Antoine Isaac; Karen Coyle; public-xg-lld at w3.org;
List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data; public-lld
Subject: Re: MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition


My question was more based on the fact that I don't think anything
should have explicitly set multiple rdf:types in there.


If so, I'm curious to what they are.



On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM, William Waites <william.waites at okfn.org>

On 10-07-05 10:35, Ross Singer wrote:
> Jeff, which resources have multiple rdf:types?  Of the muscomps, they
> should all only be mo:Genre.

I think it is perfectly valid to have multiple types. At the
very minimum everything is an rdfs:Resource whether
stated explicitly or not. If something breaks when it is
explicitly stated because it doesn't like multiple types I
think that something is itself broken...


William Waites           <william.waites at okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20100706/f39d0cf3/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the open-bibliography mailing list