I couldn't "agree" more with Andrea and Chime on this one. And would like to see some good reason(s) for us to continue to be burdened by them. The standard answer - 'tooling can help in managing the readability aspects' has been heard several times, and yet everyone seems to pass around 'raw RDF or SPARQL snippets with readable URIs' - for sure these will be absolutely unreadable if we were to use totally opaque identifiers. I recently had a discussion on this topic with Michel (during Semtech) and this exact line of thinking that Mark alluded to in his email came up: "though I guess, for them, "partOf" *is* opaque... so...?? Perhaps that argument is somewhat spurious??" --Sivaram ____________________________ Sivaram Arabandi, MD, MS Ph: 216.374.2883 http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SivaramArabandi http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sivaram-arabandi/1/9ab/92a On Jun 20, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Chime Ogbuji wrote: > On Monday, June 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote: >> Hi, >> sorry to jump on this thread like this... >> >> To be honest, I'm kind of concerned by the insistence on semantic-opaque >> identifiers. > I am as well and I have been for some time. >> I understand the reason for them, > > Actually, I would be interested in hearing the reason for them enumerated, because I have had a hard time imagining what could possibly offset the (significant) impact on readability that it has on biomedical ontologies. The barrier is already high for non-logicians and non-semantic web aficionados to use biomedical ontologies. Why set it any higher? > > -- Chime >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 20:52:28 UTC