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

Re: My task from last week: Semantic free identifiers

From: Jack Park <jackpark@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:35:15 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTiktm-MQ50wtdseCSZ4fcGF6Kj4Abw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>, Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>, MMVagnoni@mdanderson.org, James Malone <malone@ebi.ac.uk>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
I would argue that "shooting oneself in the foot" may not be as much
an issue as the one Wikipedia got into when it assigned personal names
to topics, only to find there were others with the same name equally
worthy of a topic.


On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> If I might summarize this debate, the arguments for using opaque and meaningless identifiers seem very similar to the argument that since there is a danger of shooting oneself in the foot, that therefore it is best to prevent this by having all feet surgically removed at birth.
> Still, HCLS is, thank God, a comparatively small community taken at a planetary scale, so I guess y'all should do whatever suits you. Just as long as this particular madness is not infectious.
> Pat Hayes
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 3:15 PM, M. Scott Marshall wrote:
>> Hi Chime,
>> The main reason is that when semantics and natural language are
>> inserted into identifiers, some identifers are doomed to become stale
>> as thinking evolves or changes about the semantic representation. Or
>> when a new 'name brand' is created for that namespace: I think that
>> the best example of this was provided by Jonathan Rees for Shared
>> Names - ever heard of 'locuslink' identifiers? I believe that Entrez
>> Gene occupies the name branding of that space now.This is precisely
>> the sort of problem that Shared Names would like to avoid by serving
>> (non-ontological) identifiers from a 'neutral namespace'. In
>> ontologies, the same principle applies (I see that Helena has supplied
>> a good example).
>> I agree with Mark about proper tooling - the tools should
>> automatically display labels. It's true that I don't know of a SPARQL
>> editor that does this to a satisfying degree yet, (except for one:
>> SPARQL Assist Lanugage-Neutral Query Composer from McCarty et al,
>> shown at SWAT4LS in Berlin :) See Mark's post.) but that is not a
>> reason to create identifiers and your knowledge representation in a
>> way that won't stand the test of time.
>> Shouldn't we consider RDF to be the bytecode of knowledge? Although I
>> understand the difficulty of dealing with non-human readable
>> identifiers in SPARQL and RDF, I believe that we are now looking at
>> bytecode and complaining that it isn't human readable. It's true that,
>> until the tools are available, it is difficult to write SPARQL
>> queries. But if we applied the same logic to gene accession numbers,
>> where would we be now? The SPARQL queries will eventually be 'under
>> the hood', supplying labels to a GUI near you. :)
>> Cheers,
>> Scott
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com> 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
>> --
>> M. Scott Marshall, W3C HCLS IG co-chair, http://www.w3.org/blog/hcls
>> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~marshall
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 01:35:51 UTC

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