W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

From: <alexpi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:49:17 -0700
Message-ID: <sb5noi9po5yodqunkllmrc88.1305758957851@email.android.com>
To: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
Cc: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>, Ryan Kohl <ryanckohl@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, " public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
za ssw m
Sent from my LG phone

Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote:

>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
>Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in San
>Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 22:52:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:27 UTC