W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2011

Re: My task from last week: Semantic free identifiers

From: Sivaram Arabandi, MD <sivaram.arabandi@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:56:01 -0400
Cc: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>, "Vagnoni,Matthew M" <MMVagnoni@mdanderson.org>, James Malone <malone@ebi.ac.uk>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3E646E76-D72B-4D9F-B126-6DC45388B0D0@gmail.com>
To: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:47 UTC