- From: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:41:09 -0800
- To: tpassin@tompassin.net
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACusdfTSmHaHKOEpWCaKjfEHJwhVzHtrFOVMek_5i5cuw54gfA@mail.gmail.com>
A good read Thomas. And here we are all trying to roll our own algorithms.
Anthony
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:24 PM Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net> wrote:
> Everybody who is interested in representing address should read at least
> this -
>
> https://www.mjt.me.uk/posts/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-addresses/
>
> TomP
>
> On 12/4/2018 5:22 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote:
> > You've got to admit that this conversation about addresses has been
> > valuable though, blank nodes were the original topic of the thread after
> > all. A lot of developers before Hugh have tried to do simple address
> > matching, myself being one when I was trying to create a food delivery
> > startup. It's been good to talk this through in the context of RDF, I
> > appreciate everybody's comments.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:31 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org
> > <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ("Details like URIs or bNodes seem to me rather down in the noise.")
> >
> > Thanks, Dave. This chimes with a lot of our experience at Google
> > using Schema.org data (roughly RDF triples) from the Web, fwiw.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 03:30 Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com
> > <mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to get embroiled in the main thread(s) but, just in
> > case
> > anyone is *really* dealing with UK addresses rather than using
> > them as
> > rhetorical examples, then ...
> >
> > On 03/12/2018 23:37, Anthony Moretti wrote:
> > > I see your point Hugh, especially in your case because for UK
> > addresses
> > > consisting of only house number and postcode structural
> > equality is
> > > sufficient for address equality. Decentralized will work very
> > well in
> > > that case.
> >
> > Sadly that's a long way from being true. UK addresses within a
> > postcode
> > my be identified by house name, house name + number, business
> > name (with
> > no house name or number at all), any of those plus a secondary
> > address
> > etc etc. Even when there's a house "number" sometimes its
> > actually a
> > number range not a single number and there's considerable
> > ambiguity on
> > how those ranges are expressed and what the "definitive" range
> > for a
> > given property really is.
> >
> > Identity of UK addresses is simply not something you can express
> > in OWL
> > or any logic close to it. You need an address reconciliation
> > algorithm
> > to map your address to an maintained identifier set such as a
> > UPRN or
> > UDPRN. The reconciliation process will have error rates that you
> > will
> > need to manage and recover from, there's no closed, guaranteed
> > algorithm.
> >
> > Once you have the UPRN or UDPRN or whatever you can create URI's
> > or some
> > inverse functional property as you wish. Except that even then
> the
> > official identifier schemes like that aren't perfect and have ...
> > oddities ... in them that can still mess you up.
> >
> > Generating unique keys for resources based on hashing a few
> > properties
> > is all very well in simple cases but, at least in my experience,
> > real
> > world problems are nothing like that simple clean. You need
> serious
> > effort to create and maintain identifier schemes and to
> > reconcile source
> > data against those schemes. Details like URIs or bNodes seem to
> me
> > rather down in the noise.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:07 PM Nathan Rixham
> > <nathan@webr3.org <mailto:nathan@webr3.org>
> > > <mailto:nathan@webr3.org <mailto:nathan@webr3.org>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hugh, do you mean something like bnode.id
> > <http://bnode.id> <http://bnode.id> =
> > > sha256(serialise(bnode))
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 22:58 Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org
> > <mailto:hugh@glasers.org>
> > > <mailto:hugh@glasers.org <mailto:hugh@glasers.org>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is not directly about blank nodes, but is a
> > reply to a
> > > message in the thread.
> > >
> > > I’m certainly agreeing that we should work towards
> common
> > > understanding of Thing equality.
> > > And addresses are a great place to start.
> > > In order for equality to be defined, I think that
> > means you
> > > first need an idea of what an unambiguous address
> > looks like.
> > >
> > > Having an oracle that defines what an unambiguous
> > Thing looks
> > > like is one organisational structure, and it would be
> > great if
> > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> could lead
> > the way.
> > > It particularly helps people who just want an off the
> > shelf
> > > solution, especially if they have no knowledge of the
> > Thing domain.
> > >
> > > However I (and perhaps David Booth) am after
> > something more
> > > anarchic, that can function in a decentralised way
> > (if I dare to
> > > use that term! :-) )
> > > For example, I might decide that I think that House
> > Number and
> > > PostCode is enough.
> > > (UK people will know that this is a commonly-used way
> of
> > > choosing an address, although it may well not be
> > satisfactory
> > > for some purposes, I’m sure.)
> > > That may well be sufficient for me to interwork with
> > datasets
> > > from Companies House, the Land Registry and a bunch
> > of other
> > > UK-based organisations, plus many other datasets.
> > >
> > > Having a simple standard way to create keys for such
> > things
> > > facilitates that, without any standardisation process
> > and all
> > > that entails in weaknesses and strengths of trying to
> get
> > > agreement on what an unambiguous address might look
> > like on a
> > > world scale for all purposes.
> > >
> > > Just generating a URI, without needing to make any
> > service calls
> > > (having found where they are and chosen the one you
> > want and
> > > compromised on it, etc.) or anything seems to me a
> > way of making
> > > all the interlinking so much more accessible for us
> all.
> > > It is even future proof:- using such a URI means that
> > if it is
> > > about something new (UK postcodes change all the time
> > :-(, and
> > > there are more dead ones than live ones), the oracle
> > doesn’t
> > > tell me anything it didn’t have until I ask again.
> > > In a key-generating world, my new shiny key will
> > slowly align
> > > with all the other key URIs as they get created.
> > >
> > > So yeah, all strength to anyone who wants to take on
> > the central
> > > roles, but not at the expense of killing the anarchic
> > solution,
> > > please.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > > On 3 Dec 2018, at 22:10, Anthony Moretti
> > > <anthony.moretti@gmail.com
> > <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com
> > <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cheers for agreeing William. On the topic of
> > incomplete blank
> > > nodes Henry I'd give them another type, the partial
> > address
> > > example you give I'd give the type AddressComponent,
> or
> > > something to that effect. I could be wrong, but it's
> > not a valid
> > > Address if it's a blank node and no other information
> > in the
> > > graph completes it.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:56 PM William Waites
> > > <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk
> > <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk
> > <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>>> wrote:
> > > > > standards like schema:PostalAddress should
> > possibly define
> > > relevant
> > > > > operations like equality checking too.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 23:41:44 UTC