W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs / Ontology for Physical Units and Quantities

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 09:48:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1431190138.13267.YahooMailBasic@web122902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Yes Phil,

I'd like you to host a DNS proxy resolver vocabulary for 4 character text chunks, with Two and Three Letter Acronyms.  I'll use XSD Schema format.  The tables can not be made with SPARQL but they can with SQL and used forevermore *by* SPARQL to resolve URN's to URI's.

Decimal Currency is a quantized metric system as Alan Turing pointed out ("satisfactory numbers").  So is DNS.

On Thu, 5/7/15, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs / Ontology for  Physical  Units and Quantities
 To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Mark Harrison" <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
 Cc: "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
 Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015, 6:00 AM
 Let me begin by taking
 issue with the that URIs are volatile.
 Some are, yes.
 Some are not.
 for example, is not volatile.
 If you set up a Web site/service with the
 specific aim of it being 
 persistent, it
 will be. Only the intention behind them makes a 
 difference between temp.com and purl.org, not
 the architecture.
 W3C would
 love to host a system where vocabularies could be developed
 GitHub-style, complete with guarantees of
 persistence. It's only money 
 that stops
 us doing it. You want to build that on w3.org? Please let me
 know - and we can talk about and publish
 clear statements about what 
 happens when
 the money runs out and we host a static copy.
 Meanwhile, anyone can use our
 Community group system now and develop and 
 maintain vocabularies for which you can have a
 w3.org/ns namespace if 
 And if you have a vocabulary
 you'd like us to host, again, please talk 
 to me.
 A few
 extra comments inline below.
 On 07/05/2015 11:17, Bernard Vatant wrote:
 > Hi Mark
 > 2015-05-07 11:10 GMT+02:00 Mark Harrison
 >> Dear Bernard,
 >> Just to
 respond to your example, that is probably an acceptable
 >> provided that both
 resources sharing that string code do so via a
 >> well-defined property that has an
 inverse-functional relationship (i.e.
 >> only one Subject is allowed to have
 that Value), much like a social
 security number.
 > Yes and no :)
 > Yes for the use of a shared property in a
 shared stable vocabulary, or even
 equivalent properties in separate vocabularies.
 > But definitely no for the
 inverse-functional relationship. The weak
 > semantics of a code implies that it does
 not commit to any ontological
 assumption of whatever the code denotes, and in particular
 if it denotes a
 > single entity. In the
 case of a city code, one can consider the city as a
 > geographical entity, a surface delimited
 by a polygon, a minimal and
 > maximal
 altitude etc, and another as a populated place with a
 population at
 > date X, and yet another
 one as an administrative subdivision with its
 > parent territory etc. Those three
 representations will have different URIs
 > and different descriptions,
 Yes, and there might be
 significant differences in any of them over 
 time. City names change, boundaries change and
 so on. I spent time 
 recently with someone
 who had lived in 5 different countries, even 
 though he'd lived in the same place all his
 life (Belgrade).
   and infering they are the same based on
 > inverse functional property is
 likely to entail inconsistent
 > The
 bottom line of this, and I'm aware to be in vehement
 disagreement with
 > many people around
 here, is that a URI does not identify an entity, but a
 > representation.
 Please let's not get into HR14.
   And a shared code is just a
 shared key, agnostic on the
 > ontological
 status of its referent.
 is a URI. It's a dumb string that has the property that
 you can look 
 it up and find out what it
 identifies, unlike codes that have no such 
 >> In that case, it's reasonable to
 infer that the two resources are the
 >> same.
 > Which is leading you
 dangerously closer to a semantic black hole horizon.
 >> However, there are several 5-character
 codes in circulation, whether CAGE
 / NCAGE codes, US 5-digit zip codes or INSEE codes - so
 it's essential to
 >> unambiguously
 specify explicitly what the code represents
 I see you have a list of codes
 a bit like mine, we should align our 
 systems! (by which I mean, you should deleted
 yours and use mine).
 Ain't going to happen.
 That'll do for now
 > This is simply an
 impossible task. You share a code, but views on what this
 > code denotes, implemented as different
 URIs, can be different. And that
 > should
 not be an issue.
 > If you ask me, the
 whole semantic enterprise will fail as long as this
 > point has not been widely understood. I
 seem to be very abrupt here, but
 > this
 is my conclusion after about 15 years munching on those
 issues, in
 > theory and in practice
 >> and whether the relationship is
 inverse functional.  If that is not
 >> specified in a machine-interpretable
 manner, we all lose efficiency because
 >> each responsible developer must verify
 that relationship manually before
 making that assumption.
 >> The major downside of bare code
 strings vs URIs is that it's not
 >> immediately obvious where to go to
 find information - you can't simply make
 >> a web request and reasonably hope to
 find a definition or other
 relationships.  Of course, as Martin points out, we need a
 >> foundation, which for Linked
 Data means stable URIs and a commitment to
 >> maintain resources and web
 vocabularies for the common good, within a
 >> framework that does not allow them to
 collapse or wither if one committed
 individual leaves or is run over by a bus.
 >> Best
 >> -
 >> On 7 May 2015, at 09:36, Bernard
 Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
 >> wrote:
 >>> Dear all
 >>> This
 issue has been surfacing again and again lately, and I would
 >> to support Martin. I've
 already pushed this viewpoint here and there, I
 >> understand the reaction of
 "orthodox" linked data supporters for whom
 >> "things must be identified by
 URIs", period. But to put in bluntly, in many
 >> cases, well-maintained codes for
 standardized identities (languages,
 countries, towns, units ...) are more sustainable ways to
 share identities
 >> than URIs, for the
 obvious reasons given by Martin (URIs are volatile) plus
 >> three other ones at least.
 >>> -
 Codes are not tied to any technical architecture, they can
 be used and
 >> exchanged across any
 information system, not only the Web (semantic or
 >> not). They allow to "weave beyond
 the Web" [1] any kind of data using them.
 >>> -
 Codes have minimal semantics (if any), they just carry
 >> identities, and that's
 great. Different data publishers can propose
 >> different representations, identified
 by different URIs, and sharing the
 same standard code. The sharing of a code via a common
 property/value pair
 >> is the best way
 to provide loose coupling between those entities without
 >> engaging into the neverending
 ontological and technical debate of knowing
 >> if those representations represent the
 same/similar/equivalent thing(s),
 and catastrophic chaining triggered by such hazardous
 >>> Let me take just one example. Is
 not it safer to tie
 >> http://id.insee.fr/geo/commune/21231 to
 >> by the common value of INSEE code
 "21231" (standardized by INSEE) than to
 >> rely on cascading sameAs leading to
 the stupid semantic black hole at
 >>> http://sameas.org/html?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FDijon
 >> which is the patent proof of the
 failure of a dogmatic and positivist use
 >> of URIs.
 >>> [1]
 >>> 2015-05-07 0:31 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
 >> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:
 >>> The problem is not the one time
 generation. The problems are as follows:
 >>> 1.
 Copyright - Are you allowed to republish the code set as
 >>> 2. Sustainability - Are
 you commited to keep the URIs dereferencable, or
 >> will some domain grabber take the
 domain name once the creator has
 completed his/her PhD and lost interest.
 >>> 3. Updates - Will you keep the RDF
 version in sync whenever the standard
 >> changes?
 Unless there is a clear "yes" to all three
 questions, it is better to
 >> use the
 official codes than derived URIs.
 >>>> On 06 May 2015, at 23:56, Wes
 Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
 >>>> How much time do you think it
 would take to generate RDF (and
 namespaced URIs) from the linked spreadsheet?
 >>>> Mappings to/from UN/CEFACT
 codes (as owl:sameAs mappings to strings)
 >> could certainly be useful.
 >>>> On May 6, 2015 4:31 PM,
 >> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
 >>>> I think a validator
 should simply use the list of valid codes from the
 >> most recent UN/CEFACT document
 (available as MS Excel from
 >> http://www.unece.org/cefact/codesfortrade/codes_index.html).
 >>>> There might be unit of
 measurement ontologies out there that hold the
 >> UN/CEFACT Common Code string for a
 subset of all units as a literal value.
 >> But for validation, one should use the
 authoritative list from the Excel
 files (since they are updated from time to time).
 >>>> URIs are not better than
 strings for validation, because URIs are
 >> strings.
 >>>> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen
 >>>> Martin Hepp
 >>>> martin hepp
 >>>> e-business & web science
 research group
 >>>> universitaet
 der bundeswehr muenchen
 >>>> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
 phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
 >>>> fax: 
 >>>> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/
    http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
 >>>> skype:   mfhepp
 >>>> twitter: mfhepp
 >>>> Check out GoodRelations for
 E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
 >>>> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
 >>>>> On 06 May 2015, at 20:34,
 Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
 >>>>> Thanks!
 >>>>> I notice that with QUDT
 there are SI conversion factors and complete
 >> URIs for each unit.
 >>>>> Is there a schema for
 validation of "schema:QuantativeValues
 >> supports all UN/CEFACT Common
 >>>>> (A similar quandry as with
 MedicalCode; where URI namespaces (like
 >> icd10:) would be more helpful for
 terminological validation and
 disambiguation than plain string keys)
 >>>>> On May 6, 2015 4:26 AM,
 >> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
 >>>>>> Hi Wes,
 >>>>>> sorry for a very late
 >>>>>> Actually you could
 easily use schema:QuantitativeValue for both
 >> time and volume, with SEC as the unit
 code for t and LTR as the unit code
 for liters, and link both via schema:valueReference, or
 better, and
 >> owl:subProperty
 >>>>>> For the principle,
 >> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Structured_values_and_value_references
 schema:QuantativeValues supports all UN/CEFACT Common Codes
 >> units, which should cover all
 you need:
 >> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/UN/CEFACT_Common_Codes
 >>>>>> (Mind the full list in
 the public Excel files, the page just
 >> highlights a small subset.)
 >>>>>> Best wishes / Mit
 freundlichen Grüßen
 >>>>>> Martin Hepp
 >>>>>> martin hepp
 >>>>>> e-business & web
 science research group
 >>>>>> universitaet der
 bundeswehr muenchen
 >>>>>> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
 phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
 >>>>>> fax: 
 >>>>>> www: 
      http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
 skype:   mfhepp
 >>>>>> twitter: mfhepp
 >>>>>> Check out
 GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
 >>>>>> * Project Main Page:
 >>>>>>> On 01 May 2015, at
 13:45, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
 >> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
 >>>>>>> Hi Wes,
 >>>>>>> On 01/26/2014
 07:20 AM, Wes Turner wrote:
 >>>>>>>> Say I am
 trying to share a tabular dataset. [1] There's
 >> metadata for
 >>>>>>>> the Dataset,
 and there's metadata for the particular columns
 >> (which
 >>>>>>>> applies to the
 particular data items).
 >>>>>>>> For
 t   volume (liters)
 >>>>>>>> 1  1
 >>>>>>>> 2  0.7
 >>>>>>>> 3  0.5
 >>>>>>>> 4  0.3
 >>>>>>>> 5  0.1
 >>>>>>>> Questions
 >>>>>>>> ===========
 >>>>>>>> # Is there (a
 good) way to specify these units and quantities
 >> (in
 >>>>>>>> addition to
 XSD datatypes)?
 You might like to check out
 >>>>>>> * https://iotdb.org/pub/iot-unit.html
 >>>>>>> Cheers!
 >>> --
 >>> Bernard Vatant
 >>> Vocabularies & Data
 >>> Tel :  + 33 (0)9
 71 48 84 59
 >>> Skype :
 >>> http://google.com/+BernardVatant
 >>> Mondeca
 >>> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010
 >>> www.mondeca.com
 >>> Follow us on Twitter :
 Phil Archer
 W3C Data Activity
 +44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Saturday, 9 May 2015 16:49:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 May 2015 16:49:27 UTC