Michael, indeed I did not not read Alan's email. I assume he refers to A-Box identifiers only. On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Glenn, >> >> it's not feasible, nor enforceable, nor desirable to develop ontologies >> entirely with random URIs as identifiers. > > > *Perhaps you have not seen Alan Ruttenberg's email on this topic. I think > they do exactly this. It was no free lunch, they had a lot of work to do to > make this doable -- in large part because as Glenn says, the duality of: > "machines need to think in ids and people need to think in names" is not > well supported by tools or methodology.* > > >> I am of the opinion that local names should indeed be designed with >> meaningful names in mind last but not least to improve the ontology >> engineering process. Though that said there might be exceptions such as NLP >> and ML where automatic tagging and ontology creation with random URIs can >> useful, but that's a special use case. >> >> Marco >> >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree wholeheartedly that URIs should be pure identifiers, with no >>> embedded semantics or assumptions of readability. And I agree with Kingsley >>> that there's an elephant in the room. I might even agree with Kingsley about >>> what the elephant is. >>> >>> But to say it from my point of view: machines need to think in ids, >>> people need to think in names. The RDF/SPARQL "stack", such as it is, has >>> not internalized the implications of this duality, and thus isn't really >>> prepared to support both audiences properly. Almost all the canonical >>> examples of RDF and SPARQL avoid this issue by using toy use-cases with >>> semi-human-readable URIs, and/or with literals where there ought to be >>> nodes. If you try to do a non-trivial dataset the right way, you'll >>> immediately find that writing the RDF or the SPARQL by hand is basically >>> intractable. If you try to produce an human-intelligible user-interface to >>> such data, you'll find yourself clinging to rdfs:label for dear life, and >>> then falling, falling, falling... >>> >>> In fact, there's almost nothing more telling than the fact that >>> rdfs:label is rdfS! This is in some ways the most fundamental aspect of >>> human/computer data-interaction, and RDF itself has essentially nothing to >>> say about it. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Marco Neumann >> KONA >> >> Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in San >> Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN >> http://www.lotico.com/evt/stc2011/ >> > > > > -- > Michael Uschold, PhD > Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts > LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu > Skype, Twitter: UscholdM > > -- Marco Neumann KONA Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in San Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN http://www.lotico.com/evt/stc2011/Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 20:51:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:43 GMT