W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Ambiguous names. was: Re: URL +1, LSID -1

From: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:19:30 -0700
Message-ID: <005e01c7c7a3$9977cb30$a100a8c0@Inspiron>
To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, "Marijke Keet" <keet@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "Michel_Dumontier" <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Mark Wilkinson" <markw@illuminae.com>, "Benjamin Good" <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>, "Natalia Villanueva Rosales" <naty.vr@gmail.com>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
To: "Marijke Keet" <keet@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>; <wangxiao@musc.edu>; 
"Michel_Dumontier" <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>; "public-semweb-lifesci" 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>; "Mark Wilkinson" <markw@illuminae.com>; 
"Benjamin Good" <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>; "Natalia Villanueva Rosales" 
<naty.vr@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Ambiguous names. was: Re: URL +1, LSID -1


>
> Marijke Keet wrote:
>> "...due to lack of knowledge...": and I presume it may be that biologists 
>> disagree also because of insufficient knowledge about the protein, and/or 
>> its (over-)simplification, that is, comparing apples and oranges at a too 
>> coarse level of granularity. Moreover, that we don't know enough about 
>> all (types of) proteins and that biologists argue every now and then does 
>> not justify conflating the actual proteins and their representations in 
>> an information system. Lack of sufficient knowledge about a particular 
>> (biological) entity is a sideshow, not an argument, to the issue of 
>> distinguishing real proteins from their records.
>
> Lack of knowledge is certainly a problem, but I suspect that even if we 
> had perfect knowledge, no one single definition for each protein would 
> emerge, as the most suitable definition will often depend on what your job 
> is...
>

This is certainly true given the history of KM, where a few years ago self 
appointed accreditation leaders wouldn't even agree to include the mission 
of the organization within the KM definition (for organizations-not 
individuals), which of course completely ended credibility in their efforts 
for decision makers in orgs.

Job and other conflicts aside, we do have legit reasons to differ on 
definitions- particularly in science R&D when discovery is sufficiently 
immature to warrant agreement, and/or when multiple definitions of a word 
may exist for good reason, suggesting to me that tying to authority can 
solve that issue. My definition versus yours can be a legit and important 
path to increased knowledge, so must be resolved.

Also, it occurred to me in sifting through the volume this morning in this 
discussion that if URLs are semantically challenged for a specific 
cluster/domain (and then presumably for others), and assuming that the two 
webs won't live independently but will rather continue to be integrated- 
then why not fix the URL/server/browser relationship? I understand Alan's 
perspective, but Eric's argument is compelling to me on this issue. Unless 
of course we want a true revolution like web 1.0 complete with all new apps- 
I for one won't hold my breath for yet another decade...

.02- MM



Mark Montgomery
CEO, Kyield
http://www.kyield.com
Managing Partner
Initium Venture Capital
http://www.initiumcapital.com
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 12:20:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:32 UTC